- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 23:53:32 +1000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Mukul, are you really sure you want to defend XSD 1.n as being
>> "straightforward"? Gosh, things are worse than I thought ;-)
>>
>
> I find XSD 1.1 as having similar complexity to XSD 1.0.
That is a rather diplomatic response!
For the interest of the TAG group:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/
137.62 KB (140,924 bytes)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-xmlschema11-1-20090430/
285.19 KB (292,037 bytes)
Why is XSD 1.1 Part 1 twice the number of characters compared to XSD
1.0? Both use UTF-8. (It presumably cannot be mostly the change list of
Annex G.) Richer markup?
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:54:18 UTC