Lists Home |
Date Index |
> From: Fredrik Lindgren [mailto:email@example.com]
> My main concern are the parts related to modification of schemas and
> their impact on the whole design. What is discomforting is that
> something called Abstract Schemas has constants, methods and
> that gives the impression of being a union of known schema constructs
> rather than the intersection. I give one example below. If you can
> convince me that my fears are mistaken I'll be happy to
> accept the spec.
Your example seems a good one to me. I also don't like using numeric
constants instead of QNames for datatypes. This may seem less controversial,
but the more open-ended approach toward datatypes taken by RELAX NG just
seems more far-sighted to me than an explicit coupling to XML Schema's
I'm not sure I should really jump into this debate since I don't really have
any interest in this activity at all. However, if the W3C is intent on
pursuing this activity, why not just review some of the prior art and learn
appropriate lessons from that?
I think JARV  seems a quite reasonable generic API for validators. Why
reinvent the wheel? Beyond that, I think reviewing the Abstract Grammar
Model in Sun's MSV  could provide some good ideas for a more generic
abstract model for schemas.
I just hope Sun doesn't drop MSV (or alternatively, I'd love to see them
release it under a true open source license). It's a pretty unique tool and
I personally have more interest in seeing more vendors innovating in this
fashion than in seeing a standardized API from the W3C.