RE: Schemas Article
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [SMTP:clbullar@i...] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:37 PM > To: vdv@d...; xml-dev@l... > Subject: RE: Schemas Article > >If all TREX does is validate, how will that be >any better than a DTD? 1. Namespace aware 2. XML syntax 3. AND in content model (from reading the interview) I've been slightly perplexed by all the negative comments on XML Schema, but I've found James Clarks interview (http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0107/0107e/0107e.htm) to be the most persuasive. He makes a strong case for seperating these parts: 1. making changes to the infoset (general entities in DTDs, PSVI in XML Schema) 2. markup validation 3. advanced features like OO structures, relational constraints and datatyping. In particular this is an area where you can't please all of the people, all of the time. Perhaps XML Schema 1.1 should modularize the standard in the same way that XHTML 1.1 does. That said, I suspect that a lot of the negative reactions are coming from people who have to implement it. For every programmer who uses XML, what percentage have written a parser? It is a very small proportion, and I think it will go down better with the developer community at large than it has with the core people developing the tools.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format