RE: Lotsa laughs
Lisa Rein wrote: > But let's just say for the sake of argument that the examples on the > site were well-formed XML -- my question is this: Just because the > DOCUMENT examples they show are well-formed XML, isn't it the SCHEMAS > that would be validating those documents that would be "breaking" the > current implementations? It was my understanding that, at this time, > any schema syntax-based validation-mechanism, by definition, does not > conform to the XML v. 1.0 Recommendation. Is this not true? Interesting point - but then you could say that anything that uses namespaces isn't completely 1.0. > Also, on a less technical, more practical note: Why would > anyone want to > put time into using the BizTalk schemas if they know are going to just > have to redo them again when Microsoft, in good faith, changes the > BizTalk schemas over to the W3C's Schema syntax? Or the reverse of > that would be - why would a microsoft-centric developer want to ever > bbother changing over to the proper W3C syntax if they know that > Microsoft will continue to build support for the original proprietary > syntax into their products in order to keep them all > backwards-compatible with the early implementations? (something MS > swears by) Again interesting. I've taken the view that although the schema implementation with IE5 is incomplete and non-standard, the techniques I have developed will transpose easily. Effectively I can extract the schema for any part of my object database by asking for an object, and all children and attributes come out automatically. Now, I could have used DTDs, but I thought that no matter how different the syntax of the final draft of schemas is, the principles will be pretty close, so I decided to press ahead with the test stuff. So, to answer your question, how much will I have to re-do on the day the schema standard is confirmed, versus someone who is still using DTDs (because there is more to it than a just a new syntax)? I think there are no right answers here. My company is small enough that I can make decisions like this, but if I was still in a large bank in the City, or something, then I wouldn't touch any of this stuff for another year. > Why doesn't MS use the closest thing it can to the W3C Schema > syntax for > now, if it can't wait --rather than an undefined mishmash of two W3C > member submissions and one unfinished white paper from almost > year ago? > BizTalk isn't due out till third quarter 99 -- how perfect, neither is > the XML Schema Proposed Recommendation -- how about developing the > BizTalk schemas in conjunction with the Schema Working Group > at the W3C > so they are sure to match?! Hey! THERE's an idea! I sympathise with you, but I was under the impression that the W3C didn't want to get involved with schemas as such. xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format