• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
• Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:52:50 -0500

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:32:37PM -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
> The textual flaw isn't that [the XML Specification] doesn't mention XSD or
> RNG, the textual flaw is that it mentions *any* schema language.

Agreed.

But the fairy dust has scattered, the hype has moved on, and few
organizations today would want to pay money to participate in
XML 2.0 work, I fear, even if we could get consensus on what such
a beast should look like.

Liam


-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>

• References:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>