- From: Stan Kitsis <skits@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:06:42 -0700
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Boris Kolpackov <boris@codesynthesis.com>
- CC: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
The following is from the analysis of industry schemas that we did a few years ago
http://www.idealliance.org/xmlusa/05/call/xmlpapers/49.1704/.49.html#S3.8
20 out of 63 industry schemas had documents that did not specify a target namespace.
Stan Kitsis
Microsoft Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:53 AM
To: Boris Kolpackov
Cc: Pete Cordell; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: Defining recursive elements?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Boris Kolpackov writes:
> Any studies to support these numbers? I just did a quick check over
> a bunch of real-world schemas in our repository. Out of 18 schemas,
> 7 are "unqualified" (~40%) and 11 are "qualified" (~60%).
In my collection of schema documents, I find
753 qualified
220 [not specified, defaults to unqualfied]
49 unqualified
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGUXopkjnJixAXWBoRAgDzAJ0QB6OWfJyf0ZZ4BHDiXGQuP1U0wQCdH5XQ
00wiF2peR7r20A1j13JrEZo=
=WWCb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 22:07:00 UTC