[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery ..)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Murali Mani <mani@C...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:59:43 -0500

I think Henry is right similar to the way the Grove guys 
were right.  It converges in the InfoSet, the 
immutable definitions not subject to transform.  The 
problem is well-formedness itself opening up 
any artifact created at that layer to transformation.

Off list, Leigh Dodds and I were discussing this. 
It seems we need as has been stated by many, 
infoSet properties that can be created by different 
means of which XML Schema is one.  A binary is 
yet another transport format and does not solve 
the essential problem of an immutable definition.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@C...]

Thinking about this a little more --
It is unclear where the convergence of schema languages will be -- i think
it mostly will be that there will be these 2 classes of schema languages
-- one defined by XML Schema and other defined by RELAX and TREX.

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

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Diff and Sync
• Next by Date: Re: XML Overlays and Deltas: Existing methods? Ideas?
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Diff and Sync
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery ..)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread