W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Comment on XSD 1.1

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 20:05:25 +0100
Message-ID: <61B08F6D858D485D8CB0153ABFEF77E1@Codalogic>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Original Message From: "Rick Jelliffe"
To: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:25 PM
Subject: Comment on XSD 1.1


> In concrete terms, I propose this:
>
> 1) A radically simpler schema language, compatible as much as a possible 
> with the current XSD 1.0 syntax, be created. It should have the following 
> properties:
>
>    ...
>     v) It should have no constraints or requirements for streamable 
> implementation
>
> 2) A secondary layer which adds:
>    ...
>     iii) Features problematic for databinding and to allow streaming 
> validation would be allowed

I'm not sure how a base layer that is not streamable can have a layer added 
to it that makes it streamable.  Am I missing something?

And my two cents on other issues...
- Restricting the range of integers and length/patterns of strings seems 
useful for the base layer.
- I don't think arbitrary values for minOccurs/maxOccurs (as opposed is ?, , 
*, and +) are a problem.

Which really points to different people wanting different things so 
sub-setting XSD into layers is going to be a problem.  It's probably best to 
start afresh.  I that respects I agree with Michael's sentiments of letting 
XSD 1.1 go forwards and then working on something new.

Thanks,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ for more info
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 19:06:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT