- From: Robert Braddock <stormwarden@bigfoot.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:21:54 -0600
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Then you accept to be to be locked with W3C XML Schema and it's a still > deeper difference of perspective :) ... Quite so. For me, the _idea_ of XML-Schema is the obvious evolutionary step from (static) DTDs of SGML. I'm happy to use it in that sense and remove DTDs from my processing (which mainly covers text documents, not "raw data" or embedded processing). I'm overall pretty dissatisfied with XML-Schema, but it does at least cover DTDs plus scoping and namespaces. In fact, what I'm using of it is almost identical to an SGML document type I previously made to represent DTDs in SGML. So, I get that and stay aligned with the "Standards," which is something I'd like to value. (It's also part of why I'm dissatisfied with it--I was using it 5 years ago.) I agree pretty completely with what you said, except of course your reference to me--but I see where that came from and appreciate the opportunity to re-examine the limitations I've chosen ;) Robert Braddock
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 04:22:09 UTC