Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 12:50 AM 5/3/01 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote: >The way it has been presented as the third component (with XML 1.0 and >namespaces in XML) of the foundation of the whole XML world is, IMO, bad >news though. > >I won't go in detail over all this as they have been covered in other >threads, but just let me summarize why I think it's bad news: > >A foundation, especially when composed of three pillars, isn't usually >something modular in which you can replace one of the components and I >don't think this is good neither for a) W3C XML Schema itself nor for b) >XML in general. > >a) This is putting a lot of pressure and responsibilities on top of W3C >XML Schema that doesn't deserve it and would probably have had an easier >job without this pressure. > >b) This is not good for XML as b1) W3C XML Schema shouldn't be seen as >a general purpose schema language and is a threat for the diversity of >XML vocabularies and b2) schema languages are a kind of early binding >that is not always something to wish. > >Anyway, kudos for the work done by the W3C XML Schema WG. I'll skip the kudos for the work - I just plain find it frightening that this is the foundation on which the W3C plans to build further projects. Point (a) is unfortunate, but (b) is a much deeper and tougher problem. XML 1.0 wasn't all about jettisoning features, and it took off like a rocket. XML Schemas seems to be all about piling on features, and I fear it will weigh that rocket down so badly that people forget XML 1.0 was exciting in the first place. Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly & Associates XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
