• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>, michael.h.kay@n...
• Subject: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:48:24 -0500
• Cc: John.Atchley@f... ('Atchley John'), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200203201940.OAA21478@m...>
• References: <000c01c1d03d$e8df3810$655169d5@pcukmka>

At 02:39 PM 3/20/2002 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>Michael Kay scripsit:
>
> > Yes. I think Schema has definitely fallen into the trap of being too 
> formal.
>
>Formal != obscure.  The RELAX NG specification is quite formal, but not
>at all obscure; indeed, one can for the most part skip the formal parts
>and still make sense of it.

Yes, the problem with XML Schema is that is pseudo-formal. It has the 
precision of prose and the easy readability of mathematical notation. The 
Schema Formal Description tries to make this completely formal, but this 
work has never been completed.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Formal specifications (was: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>

• References:
  • RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by Date: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by thread: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread