• To: <bob@w...>
• Subject: RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XMLBinary Characterization WG public list availabl)
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:27:06 -0400
• Cc: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <000701c42242$66960470$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• References: <000701c42242$66960470$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>

At 1:03 PM -0400 4/14/04, Bob Wyman wrote:

>	In summary: The problem here isn't X.fws, ASN.1, etc... -- the
>problem, if any, is that the Schema language isn't expressive enough
>or that people are using the wrong data types in their schemas. If
>X.fws is used with properly defined, expressive schemas, these
>problems will not arise.

Again,that may not be the problem. People may well be using the right 
data types in *their* schemas for*their* needs. However *their* needs 
may not be *my* needs, and I may well be using a different schema as 
a result.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• References:
  • RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free
• Next by Date: Re: Why a "general" solution?
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl)
• Next by thread: RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XMLBinary Characterization WG public list availabl)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread