xml-dev - Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?

[Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>]

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