[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

• From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>
• To: XML Developers' List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:06:44 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@j...]

> (a) overly tight coupling between other W3C specs and XML Schema 1.0
> will be avoided

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.

> (b) future versions of XML Schema will not be constrained to be 100%
> compatible with XML Schema 1.0; the requirement for any future version
> should be that it be possible automatically to translate XML Schema 1.0
> into that future version

I think there would be support for that.

David Cleary
Progress Software

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: binary data in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Previous by thread: Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Next by thread: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread