[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi, Kohsuke,
Quoting Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi@Sun.COM>:
> Just out of curiosity, why aren't you interested in supporting other
> languages, if you don't think XML Schema makes sense?
I do not refuse all aspects of XML Schema. For example the
distinction between sequences, choices, all and group is
well choosen. So are most of the basic data types, the
facets or the mechanism of restriction. My personal impression
is that would make a nice and much more powerful replacement
for the DTD.
But unfortunately that wasn't sufficient. For example: Why is
it so difficult to mix multiple namespaces? IMO the target
namespace as a default would have been completely sufficient,
without enforcing anything. Another example: The "any" type -
I still do not really understand how many flavours of "any"
there are. Next example: A schema A can include B. Excellent!
But why can A use components from schema B? Why the nonsense
with "final" and "block"?
However, fact is, we *have* XML Schema. Vendors are backing
it (for example, Sun :-) and I suppose they won't be interested
in moving their tools to Schematron or Relax NG. However,
a lite version might find agreement.
Jochen
|
