W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:20:52 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C108EEF365@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <cmsmcq@w3.org>

> > True; if they happen to use the same schema *and* the
> > same schema-validation tools, and they do make sure
> > that the schema is associated with a namespace name
> > explicitly (not always the case), then they ought to be
> > bug-compatible, yes.
> 
> I'm a little confused:  are you suggesting that there are any
conforming
> (or even plausible buggy) implementations of XML schema that would

No, not at all.  I was just suggesting that it is *possible* for two
departments to validate against the "same" schema without using the same
namespace name to actually publish their document to another group.
This is fairly plausible in the case of xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation.

I didn't mean to suggest that Paul was wrong.  There are certainly best
practices that can be followed to mitigate the problems I outlined
earlier, as he points out.  I simply was expressing skepticism that
those best practices are necessarily obvious or likely to be sought out
and adhered to by average folks.
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 13:21:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC