• From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:35:51 -0800

On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> There were several proposals on the table including xml-schema, but if
> my recollection is right, counter argument against xml-schema was that
> it can lead to false conclusion that this PI is suitable only for use
> with W3C XML Schema and not with other schema languages like Schematron
> and RELAX NG.

I worried as much.

It's just this kind of thing that gets XML a bad name. The horse of XML Schema bolted a long time ago. Making clarity suffer in the name of correctness is a poor decision.

-- Edd

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>

• References:
  • Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: AssociatingSchemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@k...>