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

Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema

  • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • To: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:09:53 +0100

Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
Matthew Gertner wrote:
> > I wonder if I have been clear ;=) ...
> >
> > By specifying the data types in the instance, I wasn't thinking to ask
> > the users to type it (except, maybe in very specific cases, but it's
> > already possible using a xsi:type attribute), but rather defining the
> > validation process as a transformation that would add this
> > information's
> > as attributes (or elements).
> Okay, now that I understand what you are talking about, I still disagree,
> but less passionately. :-) Sure, that's a neat idea. We actually use
> something quite similar in our products. The only remaining point of
> contention for me is the statement that data types can vary for the same
> element types for the same instances (i.e. by attaching the instance to
> multiple schemas). This becomes closer to a personally held opinion that a
> universal truth, however. In my view, information architectures based on XML
> will be driven by XML schemas (hence the bean example in my last post). A
> given schema tells you how to process a given class of instances, so you
> have to have a single schema for a given instance. This seems emminently
> logical to me, but I'd be curious to hear some justification for the
> opposite view.

An "official" justification that I have heard from C. M.
Sperberg-McQueen at XML 2000 (I think he was presenting just before you
;=) ) was an example of a B2B application where the guys who are
receiving a document want to apply their own version of a schema that
they do trust and has enhanced controls.

I am no specialist of these types of system and cannot judge if this is
a good case though it seems to make sense.

My own justification is more "guts feeling"...

I think that a great asset of XML is to decouple the documents from the
technology used to process them and I consider W3C XML Schema as a
technology amongst other.

I am as reluctant to create a dependency over W3C XML Schema than I
would be to create a dependency over a specific language or OS.

Of course, if you consider W3C XML Schema as a part of XML 2.0 core, you
will strongly disagree (and find it fine that the other specs rely on
W3C XML Schema).


> Matt

Rendez-vous à Paris pour net2001.               http://www.mynet2001.net
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.