Jason Zurawski wrote:
Last week's mail conversation drifted from XML syntax for NML relations to the use of namespaces in NML messages.
An important difference in view was identified. Jason assumed that a single NML messages would only contain one namespace.
I never said nor implied this in any way
Sorry if you feel I jumped to conclusions. You indeed only wrote:
to my knowledge a parser can only verify against a single schema at any given time.
Perhaps we still need to take a few steps back. Do you think that a NML messages may contain multiple namespaces? Do you agree with the following requirement I wrote earlier: 1. Be extensible 2. It should be possible to create a specific validator for each relation type. 3. Parsers should be able to recognise an unknown relation type as a relation subclass (rather then simply an unknown element) If you have time to phone today, that would be great. Regards, Freek