SM> RE: PWG Pattern vs. QName

SM> RE: PWG Pattern vs. QName

SM> RE: PWG Pattern vs. QName

Zehler, Peter PZehler at
Tue Jan 7 09:10:34 EST 2003

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?
	Peter Zehler 
Xerox Architecture Center 
Email: PZehler at 
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]
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: JARVIS,DAN (HP-Boise,ex1) 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:03 PM
To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
Subject: PWG Pattern vs. QName

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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Sm mailing list