Comments on NOTE-xml-schema-req

Overall I think the requirements document is impressively well-written
and comprehensible, and I have very few things to 'complain' about.

First, and most importantly, the document makes no mention of the
possibility for more than one schema language, even though this is
explicitly mentioned in the charter for the WG. Given the extremely
various uses XML is likely to be put to, I think more than one schema
language will be required and so one should plan for that. (For
example, the EDI people will very likely have rather specialized

So I think the document should add a requirement to the effect that
the schema language must allow for multiple kinds of schemas (of which
DTDs and the W3C XML schema language are but two examples).

Second, under section 5 and 'Structural requirements', point 3 is
completely incomprehensible to me. What kind of 'semantic
understanding of a construct' can be referenced by a URI? Elsewhere
the document is admirably adept at avoiding that much-abused word
'semantics', and so it confuses me to see it here.

A clarification or rewording of this point would be useful, I think.

Third, under section 5 and 'Conformance' I miss a point about error
handling. It may be covered by the first point, but if so I think it
would be better if that were made explicit.

--Lars M.

Received on Tuesday, 16 February 1999 17:12:04 UTC