[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "David E. Cleary" <email@example.com>,XML Developers' List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:59:34 -0500
At 09:06 AM 3/12/01 -0500, David E. Cleary wrote:
>Given that most XML Schema alternatives have adopted XML Schema Datatypes,
>is there anything in the PSVI that would harm alternative schema languages
>from creating one? By agreeing to support the PSVI, other specifications as
>well as alternative schema languages can coexist in an interoperable
I'd suggest taking a closer look at _how_ those specs have adopted XML
Schema Datatypes. RELAX, for example, supports only built-in data types,
and identifies them _without_ the use of namespace prefixes - "string"
instead of "xsd:string".
That's a lot of what brought me to suggesting a URI-based approach rather a
QName approach last week, though Jonathan Borden is now suggesting some
interesting ways of handling QName/URI conversion. (I'd let QNames go,
personally, but maybe there's a softer approach.
There's also Eric van der Vlist's notes on datatypes in a previous thread:
In general, I'd suggest that problems with XML Schema Part 2 have been
obscured by the general focus on more obvious difficulties with XML Schema
Part 1. Part 2 doesn't read as complicated, setting off fewer warnings,
but I'd suggest there's still a lot of discussion to be had before we use
XML Schema Part 2 as a foundation for anything we genuinely care about.
Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books