W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > July 2008

Re: UPA example

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0100
Message-ID: <001901c8dbbf$14336c50$ea00a8c0@Codalogic>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Original Message From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen"

> I think explaining things to users would be somewhat simpler if
> we lost the Unique Particle Attribution rule entirely, but I have
> not succeeded in persuading the rest of the working group.

Hi Michael,

You've mentioned removing the UPA rule before.  Presumably there must be 
some sort of Particle Attribution process, so what would you suggest would 
happen if UPA was removed (as opposed to, say, the UPA rules being changed)?


Pete Cordell
For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 21:12:37 UTC

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