Re: It seems to be a problem with the XML Schema for Schemas which is normative... from Henry S. Thompson on 2005-03-18 (www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org from January to March 2005)

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:26:55 +0000
To: "Post, Dr. Ulrich" <Ulrich.Post@softwareag.com>
Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b64zpi9sw.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

So it turns out I _did_ answer the question at the time, but I moved
the discussion to xmlschema-dev [1], without leaving a pointer here,
which I should have.  Here's what I said:

  This is a sensible architecture, but I don't understand the reply
  from XML Mind -- the sForS does in fact rule out a base attribute on
  xs:complexType elements, so their tool should throw it out at [1].

  I've moved this discussion to xmlschema-dev, since it's not an issue
  about the REC as such.

ht

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/2005Jan/0032.html
-- 
 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 Friday, 18 March 2005 09:27:01 UTC