- From: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 04:47:35 EDT
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- CC: public-qt-comments@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <21.32cfefcd.2c5cd4a7@aol.com>
In recent posts to public-qt-comments@w3.org (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/0004.html) and <A HREF="mailto:www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org">www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org</A> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JulSep/0031.ht ml) I drew attention to a seeming discrepancy between the definition of an XML namespace in the Namespaces in XML 1.0 Recommendation (where it is limited to element type names and attribute names) and the use of "XML namespaces" in W3C XML Schema, XQuery, XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 to contain datatype and function names. I appreciate that the seeming discrepancy may be "put right" by altering the definition of an XML namespace in the Namespaces in XML 1.0 Rec (and the 1.1 CR). However, since the question of what an XML namespace might or might not legitimately contain may impact on many XML-related technologies as well as potentially impacting on current TAG namespace-related considerations I thought it appropriate that TAG consider whether they should define what are the limits of what an "XML namespace" may legitimately contain. Andrew Watt "XHTML 2.0 - the W3C leading the Web to its full potential ... to implement yesterday's technology tomorrow"
Received on Saturday, 2 August 2003 04:47:46 UTC