Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Most interesting were the recommendations for future committee work, > which can be summed as: For God's sake, don't add anything; concentrate > on errata and conformance tests. That may be the groupthink at the end of the meeting, but it is not what you see in many of pre-meeting submissions, unless you have a very liberal definition of errata. Many people want reforms to wildcards and UPA, in particular. When the participants go home again, they will still need their changes, or be unable to cope with mixed content, or runtime typing, or whatever, and wonder "Did that workshop actually set my requirement back a step?" Large user groups will have to show leadership with profiles. And vendors will have to adopt a layered mentality defined outside the XML Schemas Working Group: MicroSoft's submissions for example manage to say that they don't want to support XML Schemas 1.1 but that Office would like co-constraints (and, indeed, that there is already have a kind of XPath based co-constraint system in infoPath). So why treat co-constraints as something that the schema grammar needs to support? Why not do it a layered way, with annotations containing, in particular, Schematron assertions? The pain of XML Schemas is its monolithicity: the solution is not expansion or conformance suites but proper layering. I have a little blog "Snow Season in Schemaland" at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7372 Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
