Re: [xml-dev] Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On Wed, 2001-10-24 at 03:31, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> As for the complexity in the area of datatypes, I have not heard anyone say that
> the facet-based approach is not the most elegant way to treat the problem.
> 
> What is the alternative:  Only simple types? No specification of 
> type restrictions on an instance element?  Using little languages
> rather than facets (Schematron's approach, b.t.w., and powerful but
> messy)?  

I've suggested that the entire descriptive type system and the PSVI it
seems to expect on the other end is broken.  

Regular Fragmentations[1] suggests a rather different processing model. 
You still could have simple types and facets for the fragments, but
they'd have a lot fewer parts and require less understanding than the
Datatypes spec currently offers.

I'll be talking more about this at XML 2001, and hope to have more to
show by then.  My presentation from the Extreme Markup Language
conference [2] covers some of it. 

[1] - http://simonstl.com/projects/fragment
[2] - http://simonstl.com/articles/regfrag/

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue