[Bug 3251] need for precisionDecimal

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3251





------- Comment #5 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2007-10-03 14:47 -------
Michael Kay writes:

> it is generally my experience that allowing vendor
> extension to a specification is uniformly good for
> vendors, for users, and for the health of the
> specification itself

Well, my feeling is that it's at best a subtle tradeoff.  For example, I'm not
convinced the issues are the same for a language like XML Query, uses of which
are typically within a single organization, vs. a language like XML, which is
the basis for communication across organizations.

If XML had followed your advice, it might have allowed individual implementors
to add cool new features like structured attributes.  I think they would be
very useful.  I also think that XML's would not have been nearly as successful
if such implementation-specific extensibility had been allowed.

So the question is, where does XML Schema fit with respect to these concerns? 
I do agree that it's a matter of degree, and that there some good points in
favor of extensibility, e.g. to allow addition of primitive types.  On the
other hand, I believe that XML Schema is used for the sort of
cross-organization communication that XML itself is.  On balance, I still feel
quite strongly that the best tradeoff is in favor of not allowing the creation
of new primitive types, but I do understand (or think I understand) the case
for the other position.

> It's better to define extensibility points within
> a language, rather than encouraging people to
> define variants of the language that are
> non-conformant, in the way that you suggest.

Again, I understand your position, but I think it's more of a tradeoff than you
imply.

Noah

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 14:49:41 UTC