- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:55:24 -0500
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
At 06:56 PM 3/21/2002 +0100, Eric van der Vlist wrote: >I have nothing against the fact that those who find W3C XML Schema useful >use it (and I have even taken a full year of my life to write an book >-which should be published soon- to help them) but W3C XML Schema doesn't >meet all the needs and cannot describe some classes of documents (RSS 1.0 >for instance) and I find it not acceptable to impose its usage. I think that it is important to acknowledge that multiple schema languages exist, and will continue to exist. >This is unfortunately what will happen if interfaces between W3C XML >Schema and other specs (XQuery to name one) are not published (if >Microsoft was doing it, it would be called vendor lock-in... when the W3C >does it how should we call it?). For XQuery, the interfaces you should care about are the Data Model [1] and the Formal Semantics [2]. To support instances defined in a different schema language, you need to map the declarations of the schema language to the type syntax of the XML Query Formal Semantics, and map the instances to the XML Query and XPath Data Model. Please be aware, however, that both documents are in a state of flux. Jonathan [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/ [2[ http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 13:56:04 UTC