Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Last mail for the day -- I think Michael Champion is more correct than Eric -- we *trust* the WGs to come up with correct technology, as a not very experienced person, I also tend to trust big corporations like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, but i think the experience with XML schema is making me doubt the big corporations to some extent. I have the highest regard for tim berners lee, who had made the web possible. I am glad with the merger of RELAX and TREX, it makes the solution adopted by RELAX/TREX stronger, it also focusses development on one specification, also personally it gives me hope of correct research -- I am sure RELAX/TREX will survive the marketing strategies from XML Schema, whatever be their individial market shares. cheers - murali. On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Michael Champion wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...] > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:50 PM > > To: xml-dev > > Subject: Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within > > user-friendlyproducts > > > > > > > > Marketed as "XML Schema", it is already in most of the people mind > > (except maybe on this list), THE schema language to use for XML, just > > because it is proposed by the W3C, the same organization that has > > published XML. > > Fair enough. Nevertheless, hardly anyone has actually USED the > beast yet except for the kinds of people on this list. At the risk > of violating the dreaded W3C Omerta oath ... looking at the official > "votes" on Schema, I don't see a lot of evidence that most W3C members > took a terribly close look at it and weighed the costs and benefits; > they figure that the world needs a Schema spec, so they ASSUME that what > the Working Group came up with is a Good Thing.
|
