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