Re: Encouragement to commit to partnering with XML Schema datatypes

[Kurt Cagle <kurt@kurtcagle.net>]

I don't think anyone has any real problem with part 2.  The principle
problems I've discovered with part 1 -- after writing a chapter about XML
Schema and XSLT for Wrox -- comes in the fact that there are too many
possible ways of constructing the same structures, and the abstraction
mechanisms add a remarkable amount of complexity with only marginal
appreciable benefit (especially given the restrictions that are placed on
inheritance).

-- Kurt Cagle

----- Original Message -----
From: "David RR Webber" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>
To: "Aron Roberts" <aron@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
Cc: <relax-ng-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Ian Galpin" <g1smd@amsat.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: re: Encouragement to commit to partnering with XML Schema datatypes


Message text written by Aron Roberts
>
   This message is to strongly encourage you to commit at an early
stage to partnering with XML Schema datatypes.  There are
considerable, perhaps obvious advantages in maintaining datatype
interoperability between these two schema languages.  Also, there's
little point in 'reinventing the wheel' in this area.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Does anyone have an issue with this?

Its the Part 1 of Schema that is where most all
of the ugliness resides is my take.

There may be some fine tuning on Part 2 - but not major objections
is my take here.

Agree - Yes / No ??

Thanks, DW.

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: relax-ng-request@lists.oasis-open.org