RE: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

["Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>]

The contracts officer or someone in that role type is responsible for
that, John, and particularly in the case as Andrew suggests, where a
separate and hopefully correctly versioned and cited code list is used.

IOW, if the programmer unilaterally decides to separately version an
enumerated list, that should be cited in contracts that depend on those
precise values.  OTW, as in the case at URL given previously, the
outcome of litigation over monies derived in a swap may fall to the
wrong party and the fault can be assessed against the programmer's
employer in a subsequent civil suit.

Caveat vendor.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:57 AM
To: Rick Jelliffe
Cc: Costello, Roger L.; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> I have reached the stage where I think every enumerated list in an XSD
> (or RELAX NG, or DTD) should be regarded as guilty until proven
> useful, unless they are stable and unlikely to change in the lifetime
> of a schema.

I agree in principle.  However, such constructs may be not so much a
schema smell as an organizational smell.  Excluding lists from schemas
presumes that someone else is in the business of making and validating
them (e.g., ISO and IETF provide the lists of country codes, language
tags, currency codes, etc.)  But if there is no such organization, it
may devolve on the schema authors, as they are the sole line of defense
against bad enumerated data.  In which case, in default of other tools,
they will put the current state of the list directly into their schemas.