W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Argh...Entities

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 04:40:37 -0500
Message-ID: <373FE415.DF506E52@prescod.net>
To: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
MURATA Makoto wrote:
> 
> I agree with Paul.  I personally would like to drop everything that affects
> information sets from the schema language.  Hence, I oppose to information
> set contributions, archetypes, defaults, entities, notations, ....

I understand your goal but I think that that is too severe a constraint.
The convenience of annotating the tree from the schema is just too large.

Given a schema and a design for an application, the application designer
can decide whether the application needs to be built on top of a schema
processor or not. If it needs archetype, default, etc. then it must be,
otherwise it does not need to be. Clearly language designers would have to
start taking responsibility for performance. "If we depend on that then
schema-less processing will be impossible.

I think that it should always be possible to choose to see the same view
that a schema-less processor would see.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

The dress code in Las Cruces New Mexico has been tightened [to] target 
Gothic clothing, such as dark trench coats. "It is not a witch hunt"
Superintendent Jesse L. Gozales said. "It is for the safety of the kids
in our schools."  - Associated Press, May 16 1999
Received on Monday, 17 May 1999 06:03:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT