[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
> > > 3. In places where the spec is not clear, or where you as an implementor of
> > > XML Schema find it difficult to implement, let's see some email traffic
> > > sent to XML Schema.
> >
> >In all honesty, will this do any good?
>
> I am not sure whether you are asking only whether point 3 will do any good.
Yes. I think the other points are good ideas. I simply think point 3
doesn't go far enough.
> 2. Pointing out ambiguities and bugs in the XML Schema spec will also
> clearly help. These are taken very seriously, and they really are resolved.
I have no doubt they are taken seriously and that fixing them is better
than nothing, but it's still just stuffing old newspapers into the
cracks of a rickety building.
> I don't find XML Schema graceful or beautiful, but I do think it is useful,
Agreed. Actually, XML Schemas are graceful in places -- complex types
especially.
> [snip]
>
> Let's
> make sure XML Schema is as useful as possible!
One reason to make the spec readable :)
-- Ron
|
