• To: AndrewWatt2000@a..., "Xml-Dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:01:01 +0200
• In-reply-to: <1a7.13eb056a.2becbbcb@a...>
• References: <1a7.13eb056a.2becbbcb@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:
> A significant number of people don't want or need the complexity that W3C XML 
> Schema brings.

Some of the complexity is hard to avoid, and in part
due to other standards not delivering necessary specs.
In particular the date/period types and algebra should
already have been done somewhere else (ISO 8601 or a
successor). Same for regexps.

There's still the mess caused by the numeric types, which
certainly *could* have been avoided.

J.Pietchmann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>

• References:
  • Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• Next by Date: RE: Cranky old farts and the static typing critics (was Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts)
• Previous by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Next by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread