Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
To be fair, in my working world, until MSXML 4.0, XML Schema could only be a research topic. Now it can become a tool. This isn't to put down other efforts, just that some of us don't pick our tools. Until MS says it is cooked, the W3C can play maitre d' but not much more. No this doesn't bother me at all. Tools is tools. The interesting application is not validation but generation of support systems from the schema. As has been pointed out often in the past, many schema uses are upstream in the authoring suite. Charlie Sorgi (then Mentor Context) pointed this out in the late eighties about SGML: a DTD is as much a specification for the authoring tool as anything else. Not that validation is not useful. Like so many things, it should be useful on demand, a service, not necessarily a constraint. The datatypes spec is widely useful of course. I looked at Eisenberg's article on TREX this morning at xml.com. I came away with the impression that the main advantage was it is simpler. On the other hand, the things that bug me in XSD are as Jeliffe pointed out and covered with Schematron is the lack of ability to cite co-occurrence constaints. So I tend to agree that understanding which features of a schema language are immediately and directly applicable should be the first order for business. Otherwise, even if simpler, it's just more stuff. We have enough stuff. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@e...] I think a more telling point is that people don't use validation that much anyway... be it using DTD's, XSchema, or whatever. What percentage of people on this list *really* use validation as part of normal processing?
|
