- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 16 Apr 2002 10:05:13 -0500
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
It's quite useful that XML Schema primitive datatypes have URI-names. For any revision of XML Schema, please specify a mapping of all names (component names, datatype names, etc.) into URI space. i.e. since... " We don't believe we have a good long term solution." -- http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues.html#ids-not-names Please reconsider issue ids-not-names. This rationale was acceptable for 1.0... "We declined to adopt the final part of your request, per (3) above, because the impact on usability in the context of a design with six nameable but clearly distinct kinds of components (type definitions, element declarations, attribute declarations, attribute group definitions, model group definitions, notation declarations) of forbidding name collisions between these different kinds of things would be too great. In particular, it would have directly contradicted the requirement that we reconstruct the facilities of DTDs insofar as possible." -- WG response on LC121 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000OctDec/0058.html but the fact that important XML Schema things don't have URI names continues to cause problems deploying a consistent architecture. cf * URIs for terms: motivation [was: Requirements Document] Dan Connolly (Fri, Feb 08 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0028.html Collapsing all six kinds of names into one would be acceptable to me... attributes would get a sort of second-class treatment, but that seems reasonable. Sorry if I'm not being completely clear. Let me know if you need more. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 11:05:14 UTC