- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 05:39:00 -0500
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
David Beech wrote: > > Thanks for the interesting discussion of floating element types. We > have recorded this as an issue for XML Schema, although the breadth of > the implications suggests that we might not be the right WG to take up > the cudgels for a PI replacement in XML - maybe the XML Syntax WG? My assertion is that a PI is an element that is a) broken in many ways :) and b) schema invisible. Therefore if you describe a mechanism for making elements schema invisible (or at least invisible to the MAIN schema but perhaps visible to some other one) then you will have defined a replacement for PIs whether you meant to or not. The PI syntax will go away naturally over time when people realize the implications of schema-invisible elements. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco Math -- that most logical of sciences -- teaches us that the truth can be highly counterintuitive and that sense is hardly common. K.C.Cole, "The Universe and the Teacup"
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 1999 06:56:44 UTC