• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: "'Mukul Gandhi'" <gandhi.mukul@g...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:29:12 -0000

> 
> But I wonder, why the XML spec (1.0 or 1.1) doesn't mention 
> XSD (i.e, W3C XML Schema language) as also a second XML 
> validation language (i.e, other than DTD)? I am curious to 
> know, was this decision not to mention XSD as a validation 
> technology in XML specs, was a consicous one? If yes, what 
> advantages we have achieved by this decision?

It's a basic issue of architectural layering. XSD has a dependency on XML,
XML has no dependency on XSD. Nothing in the XML spec is affected if XSD
changes.

It's bad enough when you're writing a spec tracking the changes in
technologies you depend on (like Unicode). Introducing unnecessary
dependencies for pedagogic or marketing reasons would be a very bad thing to
do.

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>

• References:
  • XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>