Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Matthew Fuchs <email@example.com>
- To: "'Bill la Forge'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Edd Dumbill <email@example.com>, "Roger L. Costello" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dave Hollander <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:48:51 -0800
Standardizing such a thing makes me extremely nervous at this point. The
value of a standard is only that it is standard - xsdl hasn't even been
finalized and we're already talking about bifurcating it. Not that I'm
surprised - at the very beginning of the schema effort I compared our task
to C++, which ended up with three languages - K&R C (viz. DTDs), C++ (viz.
xsdl) and ANSI C (viz. xsdl--, perhaps DTDs plus datatypes). But at least
C++ was up and running _before_ the ANSI C effort was underway.
It is certainly possible, within your own schema, to turn off most of the
DTD++ features and end up with the ANSI C analog. But please do that with
an xsdl parser, rather than trying to immediately standardize some
And try working with the language as is. You might be surprised.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill la Forge [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 5:59 PM
> To: Edd Dumbill; Roger L. Costello; Dave Hollander
> Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> Schneider,John C.;
> Cokus,Michael S.; Ripley,Michael W.
> Subject: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
> From: Dave Hollander <email@example.com>
> > PS. Regarding "heavy" schemas: I do not see why someone could not
> > use a sub-set of XML Schemas to achieve a easy to learn and use
> > schema language. If anyone has ideas on this application profile,
> > let me know.
> Such a sub-set could have tremendous utility, both for
> simplified implementations
> and as a means of learning the larger schema.
> I think it should be possible, though I have no idea of the
> effort required, to
> define a standard subset roughly equivalent to DTDs. But I
> suspect such a
> standard would have great value.
> Bill la Forge