• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:29:33 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Henry S. Thompson wrote:

> Neither of these is the reason it's there in XML Schema.  It's there,
> as its name in XML Schema, namely Unique Particle Attribution,
> suggests, so _other_ aspects of the particles besides those involved
> directly in validation can be relied on, e.g. annotations and
> key/keyref/unique declarations.
>
> ht

I think Henry Thompson knows my disagreement very well --
Unique Particle Attribution as in XML Schema is *very* restrictive --
Annotations and key/keyref/unique declarations require, if any,
unambiguous grammars.
I think we are *totally* screwing up document processing with these
restrictions.
I think we do not have an obvious solution here -- so we should work
harder to get a solution, and not push forward one possible solution which
has several negative points without analyzing all solutions.

<warning>speaking for himself only</warning>

regards - murali.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery..)
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>

• References:
  • Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery..)
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C press release: comments on standard-setting
• Next by Date: Re: open sourced xml diff tools or package ?
• Previous by thread: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery..)
• Next by thread: Re: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery..)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread