Simon St.Laurent scripsit:

> See, for instance, the "data versus text" section at the end of:
> http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/RngBookTextPatterns.html
> 
> That feels to me like an overstep.

Ah, I see.  But the restrictions on the use of datatypes in mixed content
are primarily for the benefit of validator implementers.  It's much easier
if you can define datatypes with a separate module that gets all the
available content and then either matches or doesn't, deterministically.

> > But if you have managed to dethrone the past, adopting that syntax is
> > not so bad.
> 
> If and only if that's your preferred syntactic representation.

No, if and only if you want the benefits thereof.  If you want your
documents to be viewable in random browsers, do either HTML or HTML+CSS
or XML+XSLT+CSS.  If you want generically harvestable links, use XLink.

> > Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing perfect
> > XHTML 2.0 without tools?
> 
> I write all of my (X)HTML without tools, and would certainly like to be
> able to continue that practice and use the new features of XHTML 2.0.

Oh, me too.  But neither of us is a Joe Website.

> I'm well-aware that the W3C membership is dominated by tools vendors,
> but I'm not willing to accept any specification from them that justifies
> itself on "but you can just buy tools".

I quite agree; one of the reasons I don't like WXS.

-- 
John Cowan                              <jcowan@r...>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              http://www.reutershealth.com
Unified Gaelic in Cyrillic script!
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticonlang