[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "David E. Cleary" <email@example.com>, Xml-Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:46:02 -0500
At 01:07 PM 3/12/01 -0500, David E. Cleary wrote:
>XML Schema is an integral part of XForms. The purpose of XForms is to come
>up with a design that separates Model from UI from Instance. You are not
>constrained in a GUI as to what format is displayed. The constraint is
>only in the transfer syntax, where it should be.
To put it bluntly, is it really clear that using XML Schema as an 'integral
part' of any other spec is a good idea at this point?
Or would it make more sense for XForms to take an approach like the that of
the DOM Level 3 Content Model material, which can work with multiple schema
types? (Yes, I know they're very different projects, but some days...)
Historically, it looks like XML Schema got piled on at a late date:
>This sets out a proposal for a data modelling language and expression
>syntax for forms. It uses XML Schema for the semantics of the data types,
>but re-expresses this in a simple syntax more likely to win the hearts and
>minds of typical HTML authors.
Interesting language, that.
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