Lists Home |
Date Index |
Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 06:00, Mike Champion wrote:
>>The basic reason is that the DOM abstract schemas thingie really didn't
>>meet anyone's requirements.
> Yes, that's probably the reason even though I was starting to think that
> it could meet a -specific yet non null- need.
I concur. The company I work with does binary XML encoding based on XML
Schema. There is no reason for us to be restricted to XML Schema and
we'd be quite happy offering the same service for any schema language,
however given the current situation it's not worth putting in the effort
to support something else. DOM AS could have helped sufficiently that
we'd be offering the same service for any schema language it supported
more easily (based on what I remember from reading the draft a while ago).
I agree that it's a marginal use case (there can only be so many
companies providing binary XML solutions), but it's non-null.
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488