Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 03:55 PM 7/3/2002 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
>(a) RELAX NG has not been brushed aside: that term would imply a
>deliberate rejection. As far as I know, no proposal to support RELAX NG
>has ever been considered by the working group.
RELAX NG has definitely been discussed by the working group; at one point I
understood the formal model had much more in common with RELAX NG than with
W3C XML Schema.
Intriguingly, the W3C "XML Schema Formal Model" hasn't seen any new drafts
since 25 September 2001, and even that dropped some of the frank language
about W3C XML Schema's formal failings.
>(b) The major reasons why XQuery is being aligned with XML Schema are
>unashamedly political (in the sense of "policy-driven") rather than
>technical. W3C is trying to develop a coherent set of related
>specifications for the web. There is no need to apologize for that.
If W3C XML Schema itself, a similarly "policy-driven" spec, were remotely
coherent, I might feel there was no need for an apology. As it stands,
however, I fear there is enormous need for acknowledgment of a grotesque
mistake rather than the political approach of driving this incoherent mash
deeper into other specifications.
However, the W3C Process Document says nothing I can find about "courage".
Oh well. If referring to the specification as W3C XML Schema simply
assigns ownership to the mistake, that will have to do. I guess XQuery
could follow in its footsteps, as W3C XML Query.
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue