[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
Rick JELLIFFE wrote: > So I expect > that someone will create a version of XML schemas using a different > namespace and the same names, but simplified down to an XDR/RELAX Core > level: Key constraints removed, simple type derivation removed, facets > removed, include/ignore/redefine removed, complex type derivation > removed, > xsi:null removed, form/block/final/abstract removed. I've been asking for a DTD + data types conformance level since the first schema spec and have never gotten an answer. Are there any technical reasons this can't be done? Given the number of applications that could use such a conformance level, and the relative ease of implementing it, I can't imagine why the WG wouldn't want this. What does the WG have to gain by pushing these users into using non-standard schema languages? The only objection I can think of is that it might mean few people implement the full spec. But if this is what the public wants, why shouldn't they have it? (Without knowing the schema spec extremely well, I'd actually guess that there are probably three levels of conformance: DTD + data types, inheritance, and kitchen sink.) -- Ronald Bourret Programming, Writing, and Training XML, Databases, and Schemas http://www.rpbourret.com
|
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
|