- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:21:24 -0400
- To: "'ht@inf.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> I can't immediately detect whether you rule > out using the default namespace Per LC draft, * In the context of schema component designators, we rely on xmlns() XPointer scheme. So, default namespace is ruled out. * In the context of schema component paths in an XML document, namespace prefixes will be bound in the conventional way (using the [in-scope namespaces] property of the element information item). * In the context of schema component paths in other host languages, and XML applications, they will define their own namespace binding rules. Given these, my question is - should we still rule out default namespace? Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu asirv at webmethods dot com http://www.webmethods.com/ -----Original Message----- From: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ht@inf.ed.ac.uk Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 10:30 AM To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org Subject: [XSCD] Minor terminology query Wrt e.g. the example //quantity in section 4.2.17 the prose says "This path designates global or local element declarations whose local name is quantity" The use of the phrase "local name" introduces at least a confusion and at worst a big. I can't immediately detect whether you rule out using the default namespace (I think you should, because you _can't_ declare it using the xmlns() XPointer scheme), but lets suppose you did or do rule it out, then the above should read: "This path designates global or local element declarations whose name is 'quantity' in no namespace" or words to that effect. ht -- 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@inf.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 Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:21:43 UTC