[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Using Namespaces for Validation

• From: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@y...>
• To: "John F. Schlesinger" <johns@s...>,"'Sean B. Palmer'" <sean@m...>, xml-dev@x...
• Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:43:56 -0700 (PDT)

> Sean wrote:
> "...although we know that XML Schema are too complicated to use..."

I'm going to cut John's quotes--

<quote>
> "John F. Schlesinger" <johns@s...> wrote:

> I don't think XML Schema is too complicated to use...

<snip>

> In my 23 years of software engineering...

</quote>

Two contradictory responses:

(1) With your experience, I'd be surprised if you found schema
complicated. 

However, I'm not sure we want to make a quarter century of engineering
experience a prerequisite for understanding the schema spec.

Requirement 1 of XML is "XML shall be straightforwardly usable over the
Internet." Can W3C schema really be called "straightforward"? If it
can't, it doesn't meet XML requirements.

(2) Due to XML-DEV community efforts like Roger Costello's on design
patterns, I'm finding a path through the complexity.
(http://www.xfront.com/BestPractices.html)

Such community efforts somewhat moderate my fear that the complexity of
W3C Schema is a cynical attempt by large software vendors to create
complexity in order to sell (developers) the tools to "tame" the
complexity they created in the first place. 

Not an unknown strategy.... Hey, it works for lawyers! ;-)

Sam Hunting


=====
<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

• Prev by Date: RE: Is it just me...
• Next by Date: RE: Is it just me...
• Previous by thread: RE: Using Namespaces for Validation
• Next by thread: standards body discussion - would anyone come?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread