Lists Home |
Date Index |
Ronald Bourret wrote:
> 1) Why do people object so vociferously to the PSVI (other than the lack
> of a catchy name and the fact that it came from an unpopular spec)?
Why do you think the spec it comes from is so unpopular
in the first place? :-)
There's a tremendous amount of complexity and unwanted
baggage in W3C XML Schema, and the PSVI dumps most of it
into our processing model.
> 2) How do PSVI proponents intend to use the PSVI?
> As far as I can tell, the PSVI contains three groups of information:
> 1) Additional data values (defaults). Since this already exists with
> DTDs, it seems any controversy here should have existed before the PSVI
> came to being.
I believe the general consensus is that, in retrospect,
including default attribute values in XML was a mistake.
This is one of those features that is tremendously useful
in SGML, so at the time it seemed like a good idea to keep
it in XML. It was only after some experience using XML that
the interoperability problems became apparent.
It's now obvious -- to me at least -- that mixing validation
and infoset augmentation is the wrong way to go.
It works OK for SGML in a controlled environment, but
for XML there are much better ways to do things.
> 2) Type information. [...]
> 3) Validation information. [...]
> Am I missing anything else here?