Re: XML Schema usage statistics

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
[...]
> It's just a shame that the WG was determined from the very beginning
> to conflate that goal with the goal of designing a schema language for
> more traditional documents.
>
> I joined the Schema WG rather late (because of the then-enforced
> constraints of only one primary and one secondary member, as much as
> anything else) and quickly realized there was very little I could
> contribute as I just didn't care about describing the constraints
> needed to do automated code generation for exchanging datagrams.
>
> C'est la vie.

Just to be clear (because some private correspondence suggests that I
wasn't), although I might personally wish that XSD was other than it
is, I also think that XSD 1.1 is an improvement over 1.0 and should be
made a Recommendation as quickly as practical.

XSD 1.1 fixes several problems that I think make it greatly more
practical for the kinds of documents I care about. I'll likely
construct a useful DocBook XSD in 1.1 (where I could never bring
myself to bother in 1.0, mostly because of the constraints on
substitution groups).

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Where are we going? And why am I in
http://nwalsh.com/            | this handbasket?-- Toto