W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2006

SV: [xml-dev] Two Questions - on XML Schema

From: Bryan Rasmussen <BRS@itst.dk>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:44:48 +0100
Message-ID: <A2DF252098C9AD4B9781453BE4C5422B562BE7@excw2k301.koncern.local>
To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>




-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org
[mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org]På vegne af Michael Kay
Sendt: 9. marts 2006 16:45
Til: Bryan Rasmussen; 'Rick Jelliffe'; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Emne: RE: [xml-dev] Two Questions - on XML Schema





>Using two different languages with very different conceptual approaches to
>detecting and reporting validation errors is OK as a pragmatic way of coping
>with today's realities, but it's hard to believe that we can't come up with
>something better. 

This seems like a reasonable statement, but then it seems just as reasonable
to say that one wants to bind different conceptual approaches together. There
are some arguments on both sides where language design is concerned. 
>> Dropping syntax is also a benefit. 

>It's not exactly a benefit to the many people who are already using that
>syntax.


I suppose not, do we have any stats on:

1. How many people actually use it
2. How many people have complained about the syntax
3. How many processors implement it correctly

I for one know I never use xsd:unique cause it bugs me syntactically. I seem
to remember having seen it mentioned in various naming and design rules as
being disallowed, so that might be an example of community opinion on it. 

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 08:46:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:54 GMT