Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- Rick Jelliffe wrote: > One can evaluate XML Schemas on general terms as a universal schema > language. But it is more important at this stage, IMHO, to evaluate it > in terms of its sufficiency for meeting the pressing needs of the day as > the bottom line. Absolutely. Let's enumerate and discuss them. I think everyone agrees that an XML Schema spec must: - Allow schemas to be defined in XML syntax - Support the functionality of DTDs, more or less - Improve the data typing beyond what DTDs support - Allow namespace-aware validation (dissent?) Additional requirements that the Schema WG set for itself include: "mechanisms to enable inheritance for element, attribute, and datatype definitions; mechanism for URI reference to standard semantic understanding of a construct; mechanism for embedded documentation; mechanism for application-specific constraints and descriptions; mechanisms for addressing the evolution of schemata; mechanisms to enable integration of structural schemas with primitive data types." They're all "nice to have, someday" features, but are they pressing needs for anyone's bottom line? *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
