Re: Feedback about XML schema CR

>       I read in XML hack that the W3C was going to take more comments on
> the XML schema CR.

Really !! :-(  :-(

I periodically check XML hack and never came across this one. May I
request you to provide me with a pointer to it?

> what I would like to do with a fixed schema language

What is a fixed schema language?


-- Asir

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 martin.me.roberts@bt.com wrote:

> Folks,
> 	I read in XML hack that the W3C was going to take more comments on
> the XML schema CR.  Well here are my views, they are high level, but none
> the less have impact with regards to our business.
> 
> 	I find the XMLSchema too complex.  It is far too broad and opaque
> from most normal people's views.  We have been using SOX for the last year
> and I have found that with the slim tutorial I have been able to do most of
> what I would like to do with a fixed schema language.
> 
> 	This lack of transparency means that it is too complex to explain my
> usage of it to my customers who I need to do business with.  There are two
> many nuances and complex markup that lead to misunderstandings.
> 
> 	I am involved in trying to agree vocabularies and transaction
> documents to do business with.  Semantics is hard enough without having cope
> with a complex syntax as well.
> 
> 	If I had my way you would put XMLschema CR to one side, and come out
> quickly with a subset of XMLschema that is a more natural move from DTD that
> the large leap to XMLschema.
> 
> 	Thanks,  the guys involved put in a lot of work on this one, and I
> appreciate you tried to do something that would work.  However, I feel it is
> a step too far and needs reworking.  It is better to be right that to be
> quick on this one.
> 
> Martin M.E. Roberts
> xml designer, BTexaCT
> 01473 643775
> martin.me.roberts@bt.com
>

Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 09:06:05 UTC