Jimmy Cerra wrote:
>  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>

How would this aid portability? Or, how do I import a namespace for 
validation purposes?


>  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>

IMO that's the Right Thing. Keeping types that operate over elment 
content/attributes well apart from structural validation is a big 
big win for RNG. If you really these types you can create them, or a 
whole library. Jing and MSV include basic WXS types for 
convenience,. The only extra types I wish I had to hand are for 
email/URI validation, but it's not like they're hard to plugin, were 
I bothered.


>  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.  :-/

I don't these are they however!

Bill de hÓra



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>