- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:54:04 -0400
- To: Boris Kolpackov <boris@codesynthesis.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, XMLSchema at XML4Pharma <XMLSchema@XML4Pharma.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Just the sort of feedback we need, thank you! It's quite possible that my intuition on this is wrong. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Boris Kolpackov <boris@codesynthesis.com> 10/01/2009 11:57 AM To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com cc: XMLSchema at XML4Pharma <XMLSchema@XML4Pharma.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: Re: Escalation mechanism for different interpretation of W3C XML-Schema specification ? 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 15:54:46 UTC