- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:51:29 -0000
- To: <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>, <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Hey Sandy! > If anyone is monitoring what the Schema WG is doing, (s)he will notice that > we are trying to improve <all> groups. One of the reasons for doing this, > which I always use, is to help data-binding. I do try to follow the Schema 1.1 WG, and have tracked with interest the work, in particular on weak wild-cards. I'd point out, however, that we are targeted on the art of the possible with Schema 1.0, however it's worth our understanding where Schema 1.1 is going. > As you mentioned, <all> feels very natural in modelling programming > language constructs. > If there are particular restrictions on it that prevent its meaningful > usage, maybe the 2 working groups should try to work together to resolve them, > before we tell the users to give up. I think the thrust is not to preclude aspects of schema, just to advise on what works well with tools. So my preference would be to cite 'sequence' and 'choice' in the Basic documents and not mention 'all' at all, rather than include wording on why it should be avoided. > (Some of you will be meeting in Mandelieu soon, which sounds like a > great opportunity for such discussion.) I'm noodling now on how to make best use of the Schema brains which will be available at Cannes. It would be great if Schema WG members could join us and help keep us on the straight and narrow! Paul
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 14:53:28 UTC