W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > May 2007

RE: Defining recursive elements?

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>
Message-ID: <03A576FA617C6544AEF9B925FB2B4E2A0DD95C23FA@NA-EXMSG-C114.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

The following is from the analysis of industry schemas that we did a few years ago

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?

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

- --
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 22:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:12 UTC