At 04:09 PM 09/07/2000 +0100, Helen Farrell wrote:
>What can Schemas do, that DTD's cannot?
Validate data types (the biggie), bits and pieces of other things.
>I thought the whole point of XML was to set standards, but to retain
>simplicity where possible. I don't feel that Schemas are readily understood
>by the majority of people.
Your views are shared by many, even those who desperately want Schema's
advanced features. The general sense seems to be that the Candidate
Recommendation is, how you say, not *written* as well as it should be.
(There are those who don't have a problem with it, though.)
Stephen Robie, a member of the Schema Working Group, conducted a poll of
the XML developer community a few months back; while not scientific, and
not based on hundreds of responses, the results were I thought instructive.
See his report at:
Simon St. Laurent tackles Schemas in a presentation at:
Finally, Liora Altschuler had an excellent summary of the issues on xml.com:
John E. Simpson | "I used to be an airline pilot. I got fired.
http://www.flixml.org | I kept locking the keys in the plane. They
[log in to unmask] | caught me on an 80-foot stepladder with a
| coathanger." (Steven Wright)