- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:21:32 +1000
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > The Working Group is working as hard as we can to make XML Schema > 1.1 clearer than 1.0, to fix bugs, and to add useful > functionality. Simplification in the form of eliminating > features has proven to be a very hard sell -- almost everyone > agrees that there are a lot of features no one would miss, but > the lists people give don't converge. I support XSD 1.1 but... One way to simplify XSD is through layering rather than feature elimination. * Move key/keyref and integrity constraints to another part * Move import/include/redefine to another part * Remove complex type derivation/abstract/substitution/nillability to another layer, leaving a smaller-than RELAX NG core language. This may entail some simplified syntax, but not as much as some people might think, given that complex types are defined by giving the whole content model, not just deltas. * For the part with complex type derivation/abstract/substitution/nillability etc, define these are functions that notionally reduce the schema into the core language or which allow static or dynamic checks on the schema. These cosmetic changes have the benefit that each part is easier to reason about and teach, but also they allow a clear "little XSD" profile. It seems to fit in with http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/09/20/profiling-xml-schema.html too. That there is no universal agreement on features for a profile is no reason not to create at least one profile. When a train is bearing down on you, it is not so important that you jump the very best way but that you jump at all! Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 07:37:11 UTC