On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 09:15, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> I don't why this isn't a no-brainer: no need to alter XSD or add 
> requirements to any
> implementations, nicely layered, blame the limitations on someone else 
> (me, ISO) when
> people start to whinge,  no political ramifications with RELAX NG, etc.
> 
> Can fruit hang lower?

Perhaps it's a NIH syndrome thing.  It may also be based on people
getting freaked about using XSD + something rather than just XSD.  For
some reason, people seem to want a one-stop-shop for all their schema
needs, and they are unusually biased towards XSD because of what vendors
currently support.

We see this sort of thing regularly when engaging people in our
environment.  Mostly everyone just wants to know how to suck the
relevant schema into tool X, because they tend to see XML as an
inconvenience.

I think if the XSD group would recommend what you're proposing, it would
go a long way to saying that everything doesn't have to fit in the one
box.  Separation of concerns is a proven software design principle after
all.

ast
-- 
Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at
InfoSeCon 2006.  For more information, see www.infosecon.org.

***************************************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
***************************************************************************************************


From rjelliffe@a... Thu Mar 09 10:06:54 2006
Received: from lisa.w