W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding@w3.org > February 2006

Re: ISSUE-18: Schema Authoring Styles

From: Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:25:38 -0500
To: Databinding WG <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE4F34640.F69B6559-ON8525711C.004EDA6D-8525711C.004F414E@ca.ibm.com>
It'd be very helpful to understand what problems people had: whether they 
are implementation problems that have been overcome or whether they are 
intrinsic schema problems.

Schema already requires too many global/named components, which already 
gives schema authors a hard time. If they blindly believe that all types 
should be global, it'll make things even harder.

I'm not drawing a conclusion that this is a bad advice. Just think we 
should understand the issues better before making a decision.

Sandy Gao
XML Parser Development, IBM Canada
(1-905) 413-3255

public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org wrote on 02/21/2006 08:57:24 AM:

> ISSUE-18: Schema Authoring Styles
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/18
> Raised by: Paul Downey
> On product: Basic
> Our input document suggests using the 'venetian blind' style of schema
> authoring, that is using named complexType types.
> This originates from personal experience with early tools which had 
> with anonyous, nested elements and complexTypes.
> Is this advice something we should carry into the Basic patterns, 
> allowing other patterns in the Advanced specification, or are a mixture 
> elements, types named and anonymous likely to give a good experience 
> databinding tools?
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 14:25:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:12 UTC