Re: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Don Park wrote: > XML Schema spec has been in Candidate Recommendation status > since October. Since inner workings of the XML Schema WG is > closely guarded, we can only assume that both parts of the > spec will soon become Proposed Recommendation, and then > finalized not long after. > > Question I must put to you is: are we happy with it? I'll stick my head out. First, the data types (part 2) should have been formally seperated a long time ago. In general, more W3C specifications should be modulized; xsl:script is another clear example of unnecessary technology "tying" which I strongly dis-approve. Second, other specifications should not be directly dependent upon W3C schemas. In particular, a pluggable interface should be provided so that any dependencies can be indirect, allowing schematron, relax, trex, etc. to fill appropriate roles if the user so chooses. > While W3C holds the right to make any recommendations, it is > heavily affected by its own momentum and the economic intents > of its corporate members, resulting in limited ability to > admit mistakes or control the direction of its activities once > the spec is in site of the finishing line. The famous postscript attributed to many great individuals, "I am sorry that this letter is so long, as I did not have the time to make it shorter." applies here as well. The W3C is good at adding more and more specifications, I'd like to see the charter re-written so that refactoring takes a higher priority. Less is more. > I hate to see excellent proposals like RELAX, TREX, and > Schematron ignored for business reasons. Eventually, ignoring excellent proposals will be a business reason, but not one of success. Kind Regards, Clark
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