Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The TAG mail was sent out by Simon, and is archived at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200105/msg00356.html Also, there was a note on xml-schemas archived at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200105/msg00367.html and the link on that posting with respect to schemas is http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-schrec.html??open&l=136,t=grx,p=xrecom Also, another interesting posting is http://logicerror.com/w3c-meeting-2001-2-28 I just wanted to summarize my opinions on the above developments in general -- this is just intent at voicing the opinion of one user of xml. One thing I have been thinking about over the last few weeks is about xml-schemas -- I think probably one mistake made was the recognition of the organization, more than the recognition for the individual people -- i think there are a few core people who get a very in-depth feel for a problem. But people by nature might give entire credit to the organization out of their humility. I think (and I apologize for hurting anyone's sentiments) that xml-schemas when they formed a group did not listen to various suggestions -- (I started in July, and was *closely* monitoring the suggestions from Dr. Wadler) when I started -- the Query WG gave a lot of suggestions for xml-schemas, including -- please do not be in the middle of regular tree languages and DTDs, that there was not really any point in being there etc, etc. Anyways, I think it is *very* difficult for people to use something which they do not understand, and somewhat difficult to use something which they do not approve of. I think xml-schemas is something which very few people understand in full, and it is also something which I think most people do not approve of -- just my opinion. I will say it is definitely something which increased our knowledge, but it was mostly in terms of mistakes that we probably should not repeat. If given a chance, I personally will encourage anyone who really wants to try to understand xml-schemas, and their design choices. I think it will definitely be good if W3C in stead of doing all research behind closed doors, do request for outside participation/assistance when needed (i think there are quite some energetic people outside w3c who are looking for some problem which w3c might not be working on and which they understand quite well, but they might hesitate because they do not know how useful their work will be) -- i think the problems become more and more difficult as we move towards data modeling, querying etc -- though the members of the Query WG are *remarkable* in their experience. it is very difficult when there are problems we do not know the solution to -- i think often the best practice in such a situation is to just do various things, and hopefully the solution will emerge. in stead of saying that the discontent with xml-schemas is because of competing specifications, i would rather say that xml-schemas should learn from these competing specifications and polish their work as to what people actually want. <warning>speaking for himself only</warning> regards - murali.
|
