- From: Ray Denenberg <raydenenberg@starpower.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:00:33 -0500
- To: <www-zig@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: www-zig-request@w3.org [mailto:www-zig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mike Taylor Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 6:19 PM To: Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl Cc: www-zig@w3.org Subject: Re: requesting XML records * Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:59:28 +0100 > From: "Theo van Veen" <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl> > > > So what we seem to be converging on is the following agreement: > > "When we are requesting XML records, the element-set name can be > > construed to mean whatever the profile wants it to". But that's > > _always_ been true, whatever record syntax is requested. > > > > So what have we actually _done_ here? Anything? Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was suggesting. I *wasn't* suggesting that a URI shouldn't be used, only that it need not be a namespace URI, nor an XML schema location. It can simply identify a schema definition, and a schema in the broad sense, not necessarily (though possibly) an XML schema. For example mike can define http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dcx to mean whatever he wants it to mean (and if he wants to he can put up a definition at that address, in plain english) and it will be unambiguous because he is the naming authority for that domain. And no, a profile should not redefine that definition. --Ray
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 20:01:09 UTC