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?
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701
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
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
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
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...