- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:45:01 -0000
- To: "'Bryan Rasmussen'" <BRS@itst.dk>, "'Rick Jelliffe'" <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> I agree somewhat. Some months back there was a thread where I > argued that > instead of extending XML Schema with co-occurence constraints > there should be > some work done on how to connect XML Schema better with Schematron. Using two different languages with very different conceptual approaches to detecting and reporting validation errors is OK as a pragmatic way of coping with today's realities, but it's hard to believe that we can't come up with something better. > > One thing that I can think of straight off the bat if XML > Schema went towards > defining bindings to Schematron of some sort then xsd:unique could be > dropped. Dropping syntax is also a benefit. It's not exactly a benefit to the many people who are already using that syntax. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:45:31 UTC