|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
At 09:06 AM 3/12/01 -0500, David E. Cleary wrote: >Given that most XML Schema alternatives have adopted XML Schema Datatypes, >is there anything in the PSVI that would harm alternative schema languages >from creating one? By agreeing to support the PSVI, other specifications as >well as alternative schema languages can coexist in an interoperable >fashion. I'd suggest taking a closer look at _how_ those specs have adopted XML Schema Datatypes. RELAX, for example, supports only built-in data types, and identifies them _without_ the use of namespace prefixes - "string" instead of "xsd:string". That's a lot of what brought me to suggesting a URI-based approach rather a QName approach last week, though Jonathan Borden is now suggesting some interesting ways of handling QName/URI conversion. (I'd let QNames go, personally, but maybe there's a softer approach. There's also Eric van der Vlist's notes on datatypes in a previous thread: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200103/msg00478.html In general, I'd suggest that problems with XML Schema Part 2 have been obscured by the general focus on more obvious difficulties with XML Schema Part 1. Part 2 doesn't read as complicated, setting off fewer warnings, but I'd suggest there's still a lot of discussion to be had before we use XML Schema Part 2 as a foundation for anything we genuinely care about. Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








