[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
At 08:15 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote: > > I don't think it adds any > > more value than the current calendar disaster the WXS > > datatypes have already created with gHorribleKludge. > >What disaster? A set of so-called primitives that aren't very primitive, aren't very extensible, aren't very comparable, and (just for process bliss) showed up only at Proposed Recommendation. Even if I choose not to use this dreck, its mere existence in a spec sanctioned by an organization that's supposed to know about these matters has made it difficult to build momentum around potentially saner alternatives. You're quite welcome, as seems your usual practice, to dismiss this as mere aesthetic grumbling. However, for a more thorough overview of the grotesque mess that W3C XML Schema datatypes have given the world, I'd strongly encourage reading: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/07/31/wxstypes.html
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|