[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still miss

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• Subject: RE: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still missing Updates
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>
• Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:44:31 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1010031673.901.5.camel@s...>
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BDC6F@s...><9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BDC6F@u...>

At 11:21 PM 1/2/2002 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 21:09, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > No amount of post-hoc formalism can create elegance when it
> > does not exist in the core of a design.
>
>And worse, post hoc formalism seems like an opportunity to formalize all
>kinds of complexity while creating new ones.

I agree that we should have hocked it first.

I would not call XML Schema elegant. It definitely has that "designed by a 
committee" feel. However, even the post-hoc formalism can help identify 
places to simplify the design, for the simple reason that things that are 
ambiguous or complex are hard to formalize. Note that the FD does not even 
attempt to capture the current definition of restriction in XML Schema.

Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still missing Updates
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Time to put SGML out to pasture?
• Next by Date: RE: Effective XML
• Previous by thread: Re: No to RELAX-NG (for now)
• Next by thread: Re: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still missing Updates
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread