[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Indeed -- that's why W3C XML Schema _loosened_ the binding between
> document and schema, compared to XML 1.0 wrt DTDs -- an application
> (read 'consumer') is free to mandate its own W3C XML Schema (or none)
> in preference to whatever the author provides. What's the problem?
Granted. However the XQuery WD identifies 44(?) types (most derived from
WXS) that it recognizes. I think the authors of the WD have now tightly
bound types to a proposed Rec that would nevertheless by largely useful
without predefined types (other than, say, string and ID/IDREF). That's a
case of authors' having a type system preference that takes precendence
over consumers'.
I'm not against schemas, you know that. But I do find merit in the argument
of the bohemians that specifying a type system in core recs is unwise. The
fortunes of the WXS datatypes should rise and fall of their own merit, that
merit being determined by consumer preference. I think many of us dataheads
would be happy to work with them, but would not have our choice of a
different type system preclude by a Rec.
|
