RE: XML Schema 1.1

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

On the other other hand, XDR and DTD 
kudzu can be a little expensive to yank out 
of contracts.  My question is, how 
big do the warts have to be to keep 
implementations of XML Schema off 
the street?  Surely the working bits 
work well enough to use them even 
if the spec is being held up for 
wart removal.   I understand the 
cost of cosmetics, but it is showtime.  
I'd like to see two years of using 
1.0 before anyone seriously considers 1.1.

Date/time?  The minimum will be acceptable.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

In the closing days of getting XML 1.0 out the door, a lot of
*reasonable* requests for enhancements were, in good software
engineering style, kiboshed as being "for 1.1".  Once 1.0 got
out the door, everyone developed a strong case of (healthy IMHO)
paranoia about screwing with the thing, and personally I'd be
astounded to see anyone take on XML 1.1 in my lifetime; the
cost is very high and the need doesn't seem that great.  So it's
legit to suspect that to push things into 1.1 is to kill them.  
Particularly when you look how long & hard those poor folk on the
Schema WG have been at it.  On the other hand, Schema is probably
a little bit less dangerous to change that XML would have been.