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

Re: XML Schema usage statistics (WAS: Draft minutes of 2009-05-12 TAG weekly)

From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:40:28 +0530
Message-ID: <7870f82e0905210610l8176505scc4acea95c0fa901@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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