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

RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

• To: "'Rick Jelliffe'" <ricko@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:30:59 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <000d01c20ed1$03fe8200$4bc8a8c0@A...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]
> 
>  From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
> 
> > Wow, talk about taking out of context. You managed to turn an over
> > two thousand word email in support of the IETF's endorsement of
> > W3C XML Schema into an indictment of it.
> 
> I am not indicting XML Schemas, nor saying that posting indicts it. I
have
> repeatedly said I think XML Schemas should be good for particular
tasks. I
> am on friendly relations with several members of the Schemas WG, which
I
> participated on, and I wish it well and I respect them. My company has
two
> products that use it.

Exactly. Remember that Don's original comments on XML Schema were
addressed specifically towards Web Services, a task where we clearly
need a rich type system to achieve interoperability between toolkits and
other applications that cross programming language specific type
systems.

 
> What I am saying, and I have yet to meet any users in the industrial
> publishing industry who disagrees, is that XML Schemas is deficient to
the
> point of irrelevence for a large niche, and that the answer is not to
> bloat it but to build a schema language on a modular framework.  I am
only
> against XML Schemas to the extent that I am for plurality and
richness; in
> other words, I am only opposed to XML Schemas to the extent that it is
> pushed as a universal schema language that cannot tolerate
alternatives.

I wouldn't call the WS community a large niche.


<snip/>

> > Saying XSD 2.0 will
> > add features not in XSD 1.0 does not translate into XSD is not here
> > to stay in any way, shape or form.
> 
> The way things normally work, one would expect the version 1.1 of
> something to be either backwards or forwards compatible, but the
version
> 2.0 to be a reformulation, and certainly not necessarily compatible in
> syntax or components.
> 
> I don't believe that the XML Schema WG would be willing to make
> any undertaking that XML 2.0, if it is ever made, will be a superset
> of XML 1.n in its syntax, its components, its semantics, or even its
> outcomes.
> 
> To the extent that that is the case, to say "XSD is here to stay" is
> a statement of branding and power rather than anything concerning
> technical merits or compatability.

The fact that the W3C has assumed XML Schema in layered specs like XPath
2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XML Query (the original argument) says a lot about
the technical merits considering the W3C process.

-aaron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Malicious documents? (WAS: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside)
• Next by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread