- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:59:30 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes:
> Element Information Item
> [local name], [namespace name], [children], [attributes],
> [in-scope namespaces] or [namespace attributes]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*********************
> Namespace Information Item
> [prefix], [namespace name]
>
>
> This specification does not require any destructive alterations to
> the input information set: all the information set contributions
> specified herein are additive.
>
>
> This appendix is intended to satisfy the requirements for Conformance
> to the [XML-Infoset] specification.
>
> should we not be appealing to [in-scope namespaces] to resolve p, p1, and
> p2?
We should and we do (see 3.2.18 in Datatypes[1]).
> If so, I think we want an erratum to clarify section D.
I don't _think_ so -- we already list [in-scope namespace] and the
Namespace information item in Appendix D (see above) -- am I missing
something?
> Also: I think section D is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it
> applies to instances and/or schema docs.
True -- that could stand to be clarified, I agree.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#QName
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-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 Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:59:31 UTC