- From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:57:25 -0500
- To: <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>
In your slides (http://www.simonstl.com/articles/schemas/schema13.htm), you said: Equivalence XML Schemas lets you declare different types equivalent with the equivClass attribute. This makes them more interchangeable, somewhat like objects of a common parent type, though no common parent is required. I think that would be most peoples expectation, but that seems to disagree with section 2.2.2.2. I discussed this in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000AprJun/0140. html arguing that the common ancestor type requirements seems to be an unnecessary and unbeneficial restriction. Maybe you know something about the current state that I don't, but this seems to be one issue that I raised that didn't get a last call issue number that probably should have unless it is buried in some other issue. --------- A six-month (or one year) timeframe? Software developers may face a heavier learning curve - they get to implement all of this and make sure it's correct before shipping it. So far, there hasn't been any work on a conformance suite, and most schema implementations are at least one draft behind. Henry Thompson, Mary Brady of NIST, David Brownell, the Xerces-J mailing list had some threads on this issue in the last few weeks. The testcase.dtd and David Brownell's XML conformance harness should only need minor enhancement to support schema conformance testing. Henry was supposed to post a message on xerces-j after he had thought things through. Probably the most expedient would be to set up a SourceForge project, though Apache, W3C or OASIS might be the better official home. See http://xml-archive.webweaving.org/xml-archive-xerces-j-dev/1004.html
Received on Monday, 3 July 2000 12:57:41 UTC