- From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:40:28 +0530
- To: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hi Rick, Please do not mind. This is nothing personal. I would like to be very frank in my views. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote: > But, as XML and HTML proved, there is an enormous value in simplicity. I agree. But we shouldn't make things so simple, that we do not meet the requirements of the stakeholders. We already have Lite Schema technologies, like RELAX NG or Schematron. Why do you want to impose everything from there onto XSD? I like the type system of XSD (the concepts of simple and complex types) very appealing. I think, much of XSD 1.1 spec, improves the XSD type system somewhat (by introducing assertions or CTA for example). I can point to one specific technology (NVDL, http://www.nvdl.org/) which makes heterogeneous Schema technologies to coexist in a single application. On the hindsight, from your arguments so far, I can judge, you are in absolute conflict with the goals of the XSD WG. You want to significantly change the core of XSD. Frankly, I don't think at this point of XSD 1.1 lifecycle (and XSD evolution), the XSD WG or TAG should do something like you are suggesting (i.e, putting to hold, XSD 1.1). You were free to propose any requirements to XSD, when the whole XSD processes started (1.0 or 1.1). But you are suggesting to hold XSD 1.1, when we are almost complete, and XSD 1.0 users are waiting for XSD 1.1 to become REC. Keeping aside what I feel, I would wait for TAG vote on this topic. -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 13:11:25 UTC