• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>,Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:31:49 -0600

I don't disagree on principle.  I do inquire as to 
when it is a good idea to make the schema handling 
more complex for all applications vs handling 
constraints in script for given applications?  

XML Schema is already complex and I'm leary of 
more cool features.  What are the trade-offs?

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

I agree. One of the very very cool things about XML Schema is the use of
Regular Expression patterns to define datatypes. Adding Schematron/XPath
type assertions would make XML Schema's complexity well worth it (IMHO).

• Prev by Date: What is the purpose of RDF Schema? was RE: What is the nature of HTML4.0?
• Next by Date: Re: What is the nature of HTML 4.0? was RE: Proposal for new RDDLnatures and purpose
• Previous by thread: FW: SIX 1.0 Spec. Online
• Next by thread: RE: New W3C XML Schema facet ? [was: RDDL Schematron Schema]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread