Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Thanks, Mike for your remarks. On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote: > 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. Looking at your view points above, I agree to them as good architectural principles while writing W3C specs. But I feel, that mentioning XSD as a validation technology for XML documents, in the XML spec is perhaps a good idea since DTD is also mentioned in the XML spec (which is also a XML validation technology). I feel, doing so doesn't promote any pedagogic or marketing attitudes towards XSD. Reading the XML spec, gives us a feeling (to me at least, I guess) that DTD is the most important technology for validating XML. Even if we don't mention specific versions of XSD as validating language for XML documents (in specific XML standards, like 1.0 5th edition or XML 1.1), I think it's good to mention in references of the XML spec (I believe, a normative reference to this would also be good in the XML spec), that XSD is also another XML validation technology from W3C, which achieves the same task as DTDs do. I think, referring to the link, http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema in XML specs would serve the purpose I am suggesting. -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
