Just the sort of feedback we need, thank you!  It's quite possible that my 
intuition on this is wrong.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Boris Kolpackov <boris@c...>
10/01/2009 11:57 AM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@u...
        cc:     XMLSchema at XML4Pharma <XMLSchema@X...>, "C. M. 
Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@b...>, xmlschema-dev@w...
        Subject:        Re: Escalation mechanism for different 
interpretation of W3C   XML-Schema  specification ?


Hi,

noah_mendelsohn@u... <noah_mendelsohn@u...> writes:

> because we believe that <redefine> has seen widespread use,

I have a completely opposite experience. That is, I have seen
people trying to use redefine, quickly finding that no two
processors handle it the same way, and giving up.

We also have a fairly large XML Schema repository which includes
hundreds of schemas for various public and proprietary real-world 
vocabularies. I just did a quick check and the repository contains
over 2,000 schema files. Only one vocabulary uses redefine.


> So, if any readers of this thread have opinions on the plan to 
deprecate, 
> the Schema Working group would welcome hearing about them. 

I am strongly for depreciating redefine (as well as inheritance by 
restriction, while we are at it ;-)).

Boris

-- 
Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools  
http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog
Open-source XML data binding for C++:  
http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd
XML data binding for embedded systems: 
http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde