> I'm not worried so much about the implementers as the users.  XML Schema 
> is no more complex to implement well than languages like, say, Java. Would 
> you feel good if JavaSoft promoted a checklist so that vendors could say, 
> I don't support:
> 
>         _ for loops
>         _ interfaces
>         _ casts
>         _ protected

Okay, this is the second or third straw-man thrown out in this thread. 
No one is saying that we expect a feature list that allows someone to 
not implement element declarations or something else so intricately 
required (though this might be an excellent feature on the list in the 
case of bare-bones datatype implementations-- in such a case who needs 
elements when all you are defining are data types?)

Yes, no one would have an XML Parser that didn't support elements or 
attributes-- but there are a fair number of non-essential features in 
XML that people don't support e.g. DTDs (in the case of SOAP), 
Validation, external resolution, detection of malformed entities in 
declarations where the entity is not referenced-- and there is no one 
walking around with sandwich boards touting the end of the world is nigh.

AElfred for example can be used in non-validating mode and still detect 
functional DTD problems... this is a feature that other parsers do not have.

I am not coming out fully in favor of building a feature list-- there 
are just items that implementers don't want/need to build out in many 
situations-- turning our nose up in the air and saying that they are 
just not conforming or complete is not a very inclusive strategy. If 
someone builds a databinding tool I don't care if they implement the 
key/keyref system.

All the best,
Jeff Rafter

From petexmldev@t... Thu Aug 04 17:11:35 2005
Received: f