I think previous attempts to identify what could be left out achieved little
consensus: it seems it's rather like Microsoft Word: everyone thinks there
are too many features, but no-one agrees which features are unnecessary.

You seem to be approaching this from the perspective of code-generation
tools. These notoriously tend to leave out the features that don't have
ready-made equivalents in conventional programming languages. But for people
using XML Schema for its original purpose, namely document validation, these
features are extremely important.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmlschema-dev-request@w... 
> [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w...] On Behalf Of Paul Kiel
> Sent: 19 July 2006 17:45
> To: xmlschema-dev@w...
> Subject: Xml Schema profile
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I know that in some circles the idea of creating a profile 
> for Xml Schema meets with politically strong feelings.  There 
> are those that argue that we should shame tools makers into 
> supporting 100% of the Xml Schema spec.  Still others believe 
> Xml Schema is too complex and needs to be simplified.
> 
> I am advocating neither of these views.  I believe that 
> profiling Xml Schema will better enable folks to take 
> advantage of "best of breed" tools as they come out, instead 
> of having to wait until each tool implements 100% of the 
> spec.  And let's face it, at best only a few tools makers 
> will go to lengths to support 100% of any spec, let alone Xml Schema.
> Rather than limit oneself to a very few tools, we could 
> create a profile that identifies the most commonly used and 
> easily implemented aspects of the spec.  We could even have a 
> "full" version of schemas and a "tools" version which would 
> be complimentary.
> 
> At any rate, this is all a preface for telling you of our 
> work on a profile for Xml Schema.  We have a fairly extensive 
> one internally and are beginning to document it externally.  
> I've created a few blog postings on this as a beginning.
> Some items in our profile are just good practices and others 
> are more of a profile nature.
> 
> Here are the first postings:
> 
> * The case for profiling http://www.hr-xml.org/blog/?p=47
> * No default values http://www.hr-xml.org/blog/?p=26
> * No xsd:union http://www.hr-xml.org/blog/?p=17
> * No xsd:all http://www.hr-xml.org/blog/?p=64
> 
> 
> I hope to post entries on this topic as I am able.  Please 
> let me know what your comments/thoughts/error corrections are.
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 


From paul@h... Wed Jul 19 17:22:02 2006
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68])
	by frink.w3.or