• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: <abcoatesecure-xmldev@y...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:50:56 +0100

 
> Rick, is that historically correct?  Was anyone in the XML 
> Schema Working Group ever arguing *for* content models that 
> depend on attribute values or similar?  I wasn't there, but 
> W3C XML Schema (to me) has always looked like a schema 
> language which takes a lot of inspiration the way data is 
> structured in object-oriented languages (and to a lesser 
> extend, relational databases).

I wasn't there either, but I always thought that they took DTDs as the
starting point, and then added capabilities corresponding to the main ways
in which parameter entities were believed to be used to achieve
customization and reuse.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in the language)?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in the language)?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Will the next version of XML Schema have aschema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describeconstraints in the language)?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemas that is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in the language)?
    • From: "Anthony B. Coates (XML-Dev)" <abcoatesecure-xmldev@y...>