• From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@c...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:29:26 +0000

> Undoubtedly XSD could have been better, but if your requirements are met by
> what it offers then there's no real motivation to use some other approach.

For the work I've done, XSD with xs:assert and xs:alternative covers
most things (roll on XSD 1.1!)... If someone is considering which
schema language to use on a project today, surely XSD is the still the
right choice with 1.1 around the corner (or just use it now with
Saxon)?

XSD 1.1 vs RNG / Schematron / Whatever is a more worthwhile
discussion, the debate involving 1.0 has been done to death, and will
be out of date soon.





-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

• 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: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
  • RE: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Glidden, Douglass A" <Douglass.A.Glidden@b...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>