Lists Home |
Date Index |
At least one of the working
> groups that has chosen to base work on W3C XML Schema has now
> created a language with a type system that is in conflict
> with itself.
For "is" read "was". The issue you reference is now resolved. The XQuery WG, and the formal semantics team in particular, have been doing sterling work to get the query type system properly aligned with XML Schema, and the issue you are quoting was raised while that process was still incomplete.
>  http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
>  http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#expert
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/#Issue-0104
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Mon 6/10/2002 8:15 AM
> To: 'Simon St.Laurent'
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is
> Futile, says Don Box
> > ><snip/>
> > >The fact that the W3C has assumed XML Schema in
> layered specs like
> > >2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XML Query (the original argument)
> says a lot about
> > >the technical merits considering the W3C process.
> > Is that a complement to W3C XML Schema by way
> > of a complemement to the W3C,
> > or is that a slur to both, or neither?
> > I can read that one an enormous
> > number of different ways.
> Neither. :-)
> All I'm suggesting is that those working groups could
> have chosen not to
> build on XML Schema if they really believed it was
> severely flawed and
> there were better alternatives. I'm not saying that the
> W3C process nor
> XML Schema are perfect, but it makes sense for the Web services
> community to focus on XML Schema if we care about
> interoperable services
> any time soon.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>