+1
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Steve Loughran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11/19/2002 02:19:50 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: wsdd question
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jordahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 06:28
Subject: RE: wsdd question
>
> +1 for "qname="
I'll +1 this too, then.
Any more votes or shall I close this one with most of the electorate
abstaining?
NB, writing an XSD for the WSDD has shown some issues
-xsd <sequence> enforces an order; good or bad we need to run with it in
our
examples
-the XsdTest dims wrote is still failing, primarily because xerces doesnt
like urn: as a namespace URI, even though it is quite clearly valid to
human
eyes. Its like xerces wants to turn the namespace into a URL and complains
if it cant
-It would benefit end users were we to put the xsd somewhere resolvable up
on the web site. We already do, via the CVS access, but it would be easeir
if the URI of the wsdd namespace actually resolved to the XSD file.
