Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal)

At 11:51 AM 2000-05-18 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 11:52 AM 5/18/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>>I would prefer to say the document, together with any documents on whose
>>relative location it depends, such as schemas referenced using relative
>>URIs, constitutes the package.
>
>Alas.  This is exactly the model I was hoping we could escape.
>
>See the opening of the XPDL drafts for an explanation:
>http://www.simonstl.com/projects/xpdl/
>
>I'll change my confusion to opposition, then. 
>

Fine.  See you on the packaging list.  Do we agree this issue is packaging
and is not namespacing?  Or do you think there is something that governs
the interpretation of the names in a namespace that should be categorically
reserved to be expressed in a package wrapper or description?  I don't
a_priori accept that there is any such packaging-reserved semantics.  My
bias going into the discussion is that there should be equivalent
intradocument and extradocument ways to say anything that needs to be
covered here.

Al

>Simon St.Laurent
>XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
>Building XML Applications
>Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
>Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
>http://www.simonstl.com
>

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 12:46:40 UTC