Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:13:08 -0500
At 08:48 PM 2/11/00 -0600, Len Bullard wrote:
>Paul Grosso wrote:
>> It would have been nice if Schema 1.0 had been something minimal
>> based on "DTD capabilities in XML instance syntax plus some basic
>> data types". Then not only would it have been available long
>Isn't that about what x-schemas were per the open list (ask Simon) that
>started working on them before they became a W3C work project?
XSchema - which became DDML - wasn't exactly the foundation of the W3C's
activity. We did receive some excellent questions from WG members, however,
and I believe it was treated as an input.
So far as I can tell, about the only lesson from DDML that sank into the
XML Schemas activity was the need to separate the data typing specification
from the structural descriptions. I'm very glad to see that.
The emphasis on simplicity and clear explanation, on the other hand,
doesn't seem to have had an impact. Win some, lose some. I wish I'd had
more time to focus on implementations as we finished that project, but
sadly I didn't.
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth