- From: Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:19:30 +0100 (BST)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Dan Connolly wrote: >> Currently, the above document is not even well-formed, because the >> entities have not been declared (after all, there is no DOCTYPE). > Exactly. >> But even if they _were_ declared, there would still be no way to >> make "θ" mean something different depending on the active >> namespace! > Bingo again. Ok, so at least I seem to understand what I'm talking about. Makes a change as far as XML goes... >> Will Schema cover this? > Good question. It's discussed in the recent draft: >: "The provision within XML Schema: Structures of a mechanism for >: defining parsed entities presents problems for the relationship >: between schema-validity and XML 1.0 well-formedness, since >: references to entities declared only in a schema are undefined from >: the XML 1.0 perspective." > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#conformance-schemaValidity Aha. I missed that in my cursory examination of that document. Thanks. >> If you are not the appropriate people to answer this, could you >> point me to an appropriate mailing list? Thanks. > If you have a comment/question on the schema spec, please > send it to the address on the title page: > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > (public archive at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/) Great. Will do. Thanks again, [BTW, Dan, could you update me on our Link: header spec? :-) Cheers!] -- Ian Hickson : Is your JavaScript ready for Nav5 and IE5? : Get the latest JavaScript client sniffer at : http://developer.netscape.com/docs/examples/javascript/browser_type.html
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 1999 19:19:34 UTC