Re: Issue: overlapping with XML Schema Part 2

[Murata Makoto <mura034@attglobal.net>]

James Clark wrote:

> I strongly believe we should *not* tie ourselves to XML Schema Part 2.
> Schema Part 2 has a number of separable aspects:
> 
> a) the repertoire of primitive types
> b) derivation by restriction and the repertoire of facets
> c) derivation by union
> d) derivation by list
> e) the concrete syntax for representing all of the above
> 
> In the long run, I think I would want probably a subset of a) and b).  I
> view the anonymous datatypes mechanism in TREX at the moment as a stop-gap.

This sounds fine to me.  In our future working drafts, we should perhaps 
clearly say that this is our direction.

Cheers,

Makoto