- From: <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:49:21 -0800
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org, public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org, sandygao@ca.ibm.com
> 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. I'm curious...are there data binding tools that have known bugs/problems with all groups? The limitations that schema 1.0 places on all groups should be something that all schema authors inform themselves about...but I can't see a databinding-specific reason to do that. Rather, schema authors should think long and hard about using 1.0 all groups in the schemas simply because their expressivity is so limited...not because doing so will cause problems with any binding tool...right? pvb
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 21:49:43 UTC