- From: Ian Ibbotson <ian.ibbotson@fdgroup.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:04:22 +0000
- To: www-zig@w3.org
Perhaps it's worth entertaining the longer-term idea that we need a new Choice based type for identifers that would allow us to use real XML namespace identifiers instead of the creating schemas for OID's? Regardless of the actual administrative overhead of trying to keep track of the relationship between these new schema OID's and their associated namespace identifiers, there is a feeling in my gut that using OID's as a proxy for namespace identifiers is just wrong. Regards, Ian. Mark Needleman - DRA wrote: > Matthew > > i think we should make it simple and just get an oid assigned > > mark > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Matthew Dovey wrote: > >> A few others have expressed the same view - the record format requested >> should be XML, and another (unspecificed) method should be used to request a >> specific DTD (or XSD). >> >> Could eSpec be used for this? Or do we need to consider something new here? >> >> Matthew >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark Needleman - DRA" <mneedlem@dra.com> >> To: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk> >> Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>; <brian@bic.org.uk> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:56 PM >> Subject: RE: Next ZIG - new record type >> >> >>> Matthew >>> >>> yes - theoretically since it has a dtd you can recognize it when you get >>> it but it would be nice to be able to ask for the ONIX formatted record in >>> the request >>> >>> mark >>>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 08:09:28 UTC