[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why XML Schema enforces UPA (was Re: a or b or both - mystery ..)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:59:43 -0500
I think Henry is right similar to the way the Grove guys
were right. It converges in the InfoSet, the
immutable definitions not subject to transform. The
problem is well-formedness itself opening up
any artifact created at that layer to transformation.
Off list, Leigh Dodds and I were discussing this.
It seems we need as has been stated by many,
infoSet properties that can be created by different
means of which XML Schema is one. A binary is
yet another transport format and does not solve
the essential problem of an immutable definition.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
Thinking about this a little more --
It is unclear where the convergence of schema languages will be -- i think
it mostly will be that there will be these 2 classes of schema languages
-- one defined by XML Schema and other defined by RELAX and TREX.