- From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@ito.tu-darmstadt.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:56:36 +0100
- To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
[Sorry -- I hit the Send button too early. Let's try this again.] Overall, I think the schema requirements are well-written and clear. I particularly appreciate the level of detail that notes such things as defining the relationship between schema validity and XML validity. Specific comments: 1) Please clarify the relationship between the capabilities of schemas and DTDs -- superset, subset, skew, not yet defined? Design principle 1 states that schemas shall be "more expressive than XML DTDs." Does this refer to readability or capability? Conformance principle 4 states that the language must "define the relationship between schemas and XML DTDs." Does this mean capability differences will be defined in the future or that the spec will define such things as how to handle a document with both a schema and a DTD? 2) Perhaps I am reading too much into the word "inheritance", but I would like to see a requirement for a reuse mechanism that is much simpler than inheritance. That is, I would like to simply point at an element or attribute in another schema (as I can in DCD) and say, "I want to use that." I believe this will be the most common reuse case. (A more generic mechanism would allow me to point at anything, such as an enumerated type or sequence definition.) 3) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would like to see entity definitions removed from the schema language. These are physical, not logical, definitions and have nothing to do with schemas. If there is a need to define/process entities with an XML language, this should be done in a separate language. 4) How is datatype requirement 2 (define a type system that is adequate for import/export from database systems) different from primitive data typing (requirement 1) and user-defined datatypes (requirement 4)? Combined with use case 5 (a database can emit a schema the defines useful and legitimate queries) I am afraid that this implies such things as key relationships. I believe these to be beyond the capabilities of a first-release schema language. -- Ron Bourret
Received on Friday, 26 February 1999 05:03:02 UTC