Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Indeed -- that's why W3C XML Schema _loosened_ the binding between > document and schema, compared to XML 1.0 wrt DTDs -- an application > (read 'consumer') is free to mandate its own W3C XML Schema (or none) > in preference to whatever the author provides. What's the problem? Granted. However the XQuery WD identifies 44(?) types (most derived from WXS) that it recognizes. I think the authors of the WD have now tightly bound types to a proposed Rec that would nevertheless by largely useful without predefined types (other than, say, string and ID/IDREF). That's a case of authors' having a type system preference that takes precendence over consumers'. I'm not against schemas, you know that. But I do find merit in the argument of the bohemians that specifying a type system in core recs is unwise. The fortunes of the WXS datatypes should rise and fall of their own merit, that merit being determined by consumer preference. I think many of us dataheads would be happy to work with them, but would not have our choice of a different type system preclude by a Rec.
|
