Re: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] RE: consistency of BIE XSD files

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

We can use xsd: as a canonical prefix, but in no way will it be 
"standard".  XML Namespaces allows any prefix -- even multiple prefixes per 
document -- to stand for the same namespace URI.  It's the URI that is 
important.

That said, xsd: is canonically used in most specs/schemas that I know (at 
least, the ones that don't use defaulting), so I prefer it as the prefix.

         Eve

At 05:36 AM 1/9/02 -0800, Gregory, Arofan wrote:
>Mark:
>
>I hesitate to take a stand on this issue, since default namespaces have 
>their pros and cons. We'll talk later today in the call.
>
>Also - for clarification: if Eve wants "xsd:" as the standard prefix, then 
>that's fine with me - I just wanted a full set of Gunther's schemas with a 
>single prefix so I could do some processing on them.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Arofan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:27 AM
>To: 'Gregory, Arofan'
>Cc: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org; UBL Design Rules (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] RE: consistency of BIE XSD files
>
>Arofan,
>
>Since you are talking about a standard namespace prefix, are you 
>presupposing that we are going to avoid default namespaces in our NDR 
>decision? (I hope so, I prefer a no default namespace approach for UBL).
>Eve,
>
>I know we haven't decided on our approach to default namespaces yet, but 
>can we at least agree on xsd: as the standard UBL prefix for 
>"<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" on 
>today's call?
>Mark

--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com