- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:54:13 +1000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- CC: Paul Downey <paul.downey@bt.com>
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > ndate coming out of the workshop was in fact someone > different than the one you've been suggesting here, Rick. So, not only > wasn't "the main issue ignored", I don't think it's as closely aligned > with your proposal as you're suggesting. > Certainly that may be true. I wasn't there. But lets look at what has happened in the mean time. 1) Yes, databinding patterns identified 2) No profile schema made 3) No recommendation, just some Notes 4) No links from XSD 1.1 to that information 5) No impact on XSD 1.1 6) Yes, XSD 1.1 gets bigger and even more monolithic, even for features where it was easier to be modular. So what are the results in XSD 1.1 of all those comments on size/complexity/etc and the interop problems reported as caused by them from that workshop? I submit, basically *nothing* on a macro-level, just some tweaking of a couple of definitions. I wonder whether too much focus on the difficulty of the XSD 1.0 text has fooled WG members that this was basicly an editorial problem, rather than being caused by the technology itself? Ignoring something by delegating it to a different group then ignoring their report is still ignoring. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 05:55:08 UTC