Bob,
The only reason I know of now for the patterns is to keep the types used in
the union the same. As I recall HP had some problem with a union of two
different types. The pattern is defining a QName. (When defining the
schema I was focused in reducing the number of types used and overlooked
QName) I have no objection to going with QName wherever we are doing
extensions federated by a namespace. The elements to be changed are
MediaNsExtensionPattern, KeywordExtensionPattern and
StringNsExtensionPattern and all the elements that use them.
Any objections to making the change?
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-30E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt at hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:16 PM
To: Peter Zehler [Xerox] (E-mail)
Subject: FW: PWG Pattern vs. QName
Hi Pete,
I got pinged on this internally, and didn't have a good answer. Do we just
have these patterns declared to avoid doing a union of NMTOKEN & QName? If
not, these patterns look a lot like they are just restricting NMTOKEN to a
qualified name.
thanks,
bt
-----Original Message-----
From: JARVIS,DAN (HP-Boise,ex1)
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:03 PM
To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
Cc: SCHMELING,GARTH (HP-Boise,ex1); HELMS,JANINE (HP-Boise,ex1); FOSTER,WARD
(HP-Boise,ex1)
Subject: PWG Pattern vs. QName
Bob-
The following two simple types in the PWG schemas define a pattern that
appears to be describing a QName:
* MediaNsExtensionPattern (in MediaWellKnownValues.xsd)
* KeywordNsExtensionPattern (in PwgWellKnownValues.xsd)
Is this pattern intended to be a QName? If so, why is a seemingly complex
pattern being used rather than QName?
-Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/sm/attachments/20030107/e2d188f9/attachment-0001.html