W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Call For Review, XML Schema Proposed Recommendation: Review E nds 16 April 2001

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:24:03 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, w3t-xml-schema-review@w3.org, w3c-archive@w3.org
At 2001-04-06 18:27, Orchard, David wrote:

>Jamcracker has been an early adopter of XML Schema as it used throughout our
>platform for describing constraints on all of our major partners, users,
>services, bills, and security.  The syntax is somewhat more cumbersome than
>we would like, but we do not have - nor have ever had - the expertise to
>offer improvements, excepting one .  We make use of many of the features of
>Schema, such as modularity, namespace support, wildcards, lexical matching,
>data-types, extension and refinement.  We find the extensive set of features
>to be at the right level and applaud the working groups delivery of the
>The only concern Jamcracker wishes to express with XML schema is that it is
>not a complete replacement for DTDs because all of entities have not been
>accounted for.  Work that may satisfy these requirements is underway in
>XInclude.  It is likely that XML Schema + XInclude could be a complete
>replacement for DTDs  However, XInclude's syntax does not provide the same
>ease of fine-grained inclusion that GEs offer.  A Entity-like syntax was
>rejected very early on in XInclude, which I had expected XML Schema to
>express an opinion about.  There has not been as much input from XML Schema
>to XML core on XInclude as I would have expected on this and other Entity
>related issues..  It seems possible that XML Schema is simply "trusting"
>XInclude to be the "right" thing for instance document authors.  I encourage
>XML Schema members to voice their individual and collective voice to
>XInclude on the issue of Entities.

David -

Thank you for your favorable review of XML Schema.  We are acutely aware
of the fact that XML Schema does not handle entities (and if we weren't,
we have colleagues who remind us periodically), and we agree with you that
it is a topic which continues to need attention and discussion.

We do believe that Xinclude requires serious attention and feedback, and
the WG has asked its chairs to schedule time for a review of Xinclude
by the XML Schema WG in the relatively near future, following the old
saying: trust is good; verification is better.

best regards,

Michael Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 14:22:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:56 UTC