• From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>
• To: "Edd Dumbill" <edd@u...>, "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>, "Dave Hollander" <dmh@c...>
• Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:59:28 -0500

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@c...>
> PS. Regarding "heavy" schemas: I do not see why someone could not
> use a sub-set of XML Schemas to achieve a easy to learn and use
> schema language. If anyone has ideas on this application profile,
> let me know.

Such a sub-set could have tremendous utility, both for simplified implementations
and as a means of learning the larger schema.

I think it should be possible, though I have no idea of the effort required, to
define a standard subset roughly equivalent to DTDs. But I suspect such a
standard would have great value.

Bill la Forge

• Follow-Ups:
  • Who would "bless" a Schema subset? (was Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing)
    • From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>

• References:
  • XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
    • From: Dave Hollander <dmh@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Power of Groves: The VRML View
• Next by Date: RE: Schema concepts
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread