Why aren't defined patterns named with QNames?  That would make
portability so much easier!  Such as:

] <pattern xmlns:jfc="My Namespace for Patterns"> 
]   <define name="jfc:mypattern" /> 
] </pattern> 


Why isn't there a more complete datatyping language?  Sure, W3C XML
Schema can often be ugly; however, it can also be elegant too.  Why
can't I specify unions and extensions of XML Schema datatypes?  Why
can't I specify non-whitespace separated lists?  Such as (I.E.
"NCName|anyURI"):

] <list separator="|"> 
]   <data type="NCname" /> 
]   <data type="anyURI" /> 
] </list> 


Why can't I do that in Relax NG?  I understand that it was designed to
eliminate perceived annoyances with W3C XML Schema; however, Relax NG
has a bunch of annoyances to call its own.  :-/

--
Jimmy Cerra

] "XML is just syntax, and you can therefore 
]  use it any way you like." - Michael Kay

P.S.  If you can, indeed, do the above, then please tell me how!  Sorry
for the rant, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>