- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 05 Sep 2002 11:19:24 +0100
- To: "Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Cc: "'Elena Litani'" <elitani@ca.ibm.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
"Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org> writes: > What makes you think that the [schema documents] property is any > more "required" than [schema components]? The REC says that [schema > documents] can be empty as well: > > A (possibly empty) set of schema document information items, > with properties and values as follows, for each schema document > which contributed components to the schema, and whose targetNamespace > matches the sibling [schema namespace] property above (or whose > targetNamespace was ·absent· but that contributed components to > that namespace by being <include>d by a schema document with > that targetNamespace as per Assembling a schema for a single > target namespace from multiple schema definition documents (§4.2.1)). I read that as saying it's only empty if there were no documents, not that you can choose not to fill it in. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 06:19:30 UTC