Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

"Henry S. Thompson" wrote:

> It's also true, in my opinion and
> that of many in the community, that XML Schema as it stands will be an
> incredibly valuable move forward: not perfect, but the right first
> step.  I'm looking forward to seeing it deployed, to using it, and to
> working to integrate all we've learned from the experience and from
> external input as we move on to start work on the next version.

It is clear to me XML Schema as it stands *is* useful.  However, it's
also clear to me that there is the potential to create a schema language
(or perhaps family of languages) for XML that is significantly better
that XML Schema as it stands and that satisfies the requirements placed
on XML Schema. I am content to have XML Schema as it stands now, so long
as that doesn't prevent the XML community getting something better in
the future.  In particular,  I hope that:

(a) overly tight coupling between other W3C specs and XML Schema 1.0
will be avoided

(b) future versions of XML Schema will not be constrained to be 100%
compatible with XML Schema 1.0; the requirement for any future version
should be that it be possible automatically to translate XML Schema 1.0
into that future version

This will allow the potential for the creation of a better schema
language to be realized to the maximum extent possible in future
versions of XML Schema.

James