Re: Comment on XSD 1.1

On 2009/05/22 20:02, Pete Cordell wrote:

> Personally I would have preferred XSD1.1 to be more of a maintenance
> version, fixing what seemed clearly wrong, rather than adding new
> functionality. To that end I'd have gone for:

> - Relax cardinality constraints of xs:all members.

Does that solve 
If it does, then this is interesting. Apparently, in 2004, it was 
considered a non-goal. It might be interesting to look at how many of 
the classifications in 2004 turned out to be correct, and why.

This goes back to 
The links there are no longer working (renumbering issue? In the long 
term, it might be better to use links of the form, because they are more stable)

And doing a bit more archeology, this goes back as far as 
(James Clark). Apparently, it takes 10 years to fix some things. But 
even if it takes time, it sometimes happens. Great.

Regards,    Martin.

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 09:22:15 UTC