- From: Boris Kolpackov <boris@codesynthesis.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:57:05 +0200
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: XMLSchema at XML4Pharma <XMLSchema@XML4Pharma.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Hi, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> writes: > because we believe that <redefine> has seen widespread use, I have a completely opposite experience. That is, I have seen people trying to use redefine, quickly finding that no two processors handle it the same way, and giving up. We also have a fairly large XML Schema repository which includes hundreds of schemas for various public and proprietary real-world vocabularies. I just did a quick check and the repository contains over 2,000 schema files. Only one vocabulary uses redefine. > So, if any readers of this thread have opinions on the plan to deprecate, > the Schema Working group would welcome hearing about them. I am strongly for depreciating redefine (as well as inheritance by restriction, while we are at it ;-)). Boris -- Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog Open-source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd XML data binding for embedded systems: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 15:49:33 UTC