Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

-----Original Message-----
From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
To: timbl@w3.org <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, June 03, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)


>
>> That is a separate battle, I agree, and I can see that you wish to be
able
>> to define languages where there is no definition of document validity and
>> hence no schema, but that can wait for another day.
>
>No that isn't what I want to do (normally)
>
>What I want to do is define languages with schema that use many
>different namespaces, (mathml, parts of html, whatever) and also I
>want to be able to define (with schema) many different languages
>using names from the same namespace. XHTML 1.0, XHTML Basic, XHTML 1.1
>XHTML 1.1 + MathML, XHTML 2, etc.


You can, I assume define, a schema for such a combined language.
I can see that you may want to define suc a combinmed language
for an application and use a schema to validate documents.
The fact that there be a definitive schema for XHTML would not
stop you doing this.

Are you at all interested in a schema for MathML which explains
where you can put MathML in an XHTML document by cross-reference
to the XHTML schema?

I feel that that is important and in fact we promised that it would be
adderssed by xml-schema when a review comment of SMIL complained
that the mixing with HTML was no defined.

>I am not at all against schema, but considering a schema as a "facet
>of a namespace" is very misguided.


Facet is your word? Would you not consider a schema language to be a way to
define some things about a namespace?

>David


Tim

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 10:14:50 UTC