> 
> But I wonder, why the XML spec (1.0 or 1.1) doesn't mention 
> XSD (i.e, W3C XML Schema language) as also a second XML 
> validation language (i.e, other than DTD)? I am curious to 
> know, was this decision not to mention XSD as a validation 
> technology in XML specs, was a consicous one? If yes, what 
> advantages we have achieved by this decision?

It's a basic issue of architectural layering. XSD has a dependency on XML,
XML has no dependency on XSD. Nothing in the XML spec is affected if XSD
changes.

It's bad enough when you're writing a spec tracking the changes in
technologies you depend on (like Unicode). Introducing unnecessary
dependencies for pedagogic or marketing reasons would be a very bad thing to
do.

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php