• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Michael Champion <mike.champion@s...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:04:34 -0500

This comment needs clarification:

"The main problem I have with it is it's too complicated," said James Clark,
an XML expert in Bangkok, Thailand, who launched his own schema effort,
called Trex, in December. "It's fine if you're a huge company like Microsoft
[Corp.] or IBM. They can just add more developers." 

Is Clark comparing the developers of schema support tools (eg, schema
engines) or 
authors of schemas?   Presuming the former, from the perspective of tool
users, 
is this as interesting an issue as the possibility of having several
schema-type 
alternatives?  Intertransformability will be the issue.  It's ugly but it is

a way to enable choice among technical means.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:mike.champion@s...]

eWeek has an article about the W3C XML Schema complexity controversy at
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2710691,00.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: TREX and RELAX unite?
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Special pounding in XSLT
• Next by Date: Re: XEmacs and the web.xml DTD
• Previous by thread: Re: TREX and RELAX unite?
• Next by thread: RE: TREX and RELAX unite?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread