- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:35:23 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "David Ezell" <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, cmsmcq@w3.org
As promised, I have put XSD 1.1 on this week's TAG agenda [1], but since
doing so I reminded myself that both Henry Thompson and Tim Berners-Lee
have sent regrets for this week. They are both among the people who have
expressed a specific interest in this issue. So, while we may have some
brief discussion this week, I'm now thinking that it will be better not to
try and establish a firm TAG direction on the XSD question until next week
on the 28th when, AFAIK, everyone will be available. Thank you.
Noah
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/05/21-agenda
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
05/20/2009 09:53 AM
To: www-tag@w3.org
cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, (bcc: Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: Re: Comment on XSD 1.1
Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Rick Jelliffe
<rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Mukul, are you really sure you want to defend XSD 1.n as being
>> "straightforward"? Gosh, things are worse than I thought ;-)
>>
>
> I find XSD 1.1 as having similar complexity to XSD 1.0.
That is a rather diplomatic response!
For the interest of the TAG group:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/
137.62 KB (140,924 bytes)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-1-20090430/
285.19 KB (292,037 bytes)
Why is XSD 1.1 Part 1 twice the number of characters compared to XSD
1.0? Both use UTF-8. (It presumably cannot be mostly the change list of
Annex G.) Richer markup?
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:34:02 UTC