On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Scott Cantor wrote:
> Will Norris wrote on 2009-10-08:
>>> a) Will will make the changes and run by Scott.
>
> The schema looks fine, modulo one possible change. The Title element
> is
> defined to allow attributes from other namespaces, but then
> explicitly adds
> xml:lang as an optional attribute. Since xml:lang is in "other
> namespaces",
> it's already permitted by the schema, so for brevity, the TitleType
> complex
> type extension to permit xml:lang could be removed and the Title
> element
> could be set directly to xrd:string.
We did the same thing for xml:id on <XRD>. All other things being
equal, I think I'd rather err on the side of being more explicit in
the schema, for those people who don't read the text of the spec as
closely as they should. What's your opinion? Were you pointing it
out simply to ensure we knew it was redundant, or do you actually
prefer leaving it out?
-will
