[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Matthew Gertner wrote:
> 1) You are upset to see a 35-page spec turn into a 160-page spec with
> assorted dependencies in other huge specs (XPath), and this is
> understandable. The notion of strong typing in XPath doesn't seem so
> horrible to me, but the bloat of the spec does. In other words, the W3C is
> increasingly unable to produce simple specs.
Well said.
> 2) You are upset because it is harder and harder to divorce well-formed
> documents from valid documents. In other words, the W3C is increasingly
> unable to produce layered specs.
Well said.
> Maybe you are being purposely provocative (I can relate, lord knows), but
> the idea that XML+schema is somehow no longer in the spirit of XML is
> absurd.
I think XML Schema is not remotely in the spirit of XML, where that spirit
is reasonably well expressed by the 10 design goals appearing in section 1.1
of the XML REC. Let's agree that SGML conformance is not a big issue,
leaving
9 - I think XSD flies in the face of at least 5. -Tim
|
