- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:21:50 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2548 jonathan.robie@datadirect.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|chamberl@almaden.ibm.com |jonathan.robie@datadirect.co | |m ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.robie@datadirect.com 2006-01-27 22:21 ------- I agree - in fact, I have written on this at http://blogs.datadirect.com/jonathan_robie/2006/01/archaeology_and.html. Both of your suggestions are logically reasonable, but I prefer the first suggestion, to use the XML Schema namespace. After all, these are types that are used explicitly in schema declarations, and for all other such types, we use the XML Schema type name, which is in the XML namespace. At the time we wrote the Candidate Recommendation, Schema 1.1 Datatypes had not been published as a Working Draft, so this was not possible.
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 22:21:53 UTC