[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: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>,"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:23:06 -0700
• Thread-index: AcIQj8C215VGW+ZgR7+IVrGA7NxWQAAAVcm+
• Thread-topic: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

Deciding that supposedly layered technologies should become interdependent to the extent that a.) circular dependencies exist b.) no room is allowed for non-W3C technologies while c.) ignoring entire segments of XML users does not sound like decision making based on technical merits but for other reasons. Perhaps my choice of the term 'political' was incorrect. Indeed 'self preserving' and 'self perpetuating' are better words to use to describe the current W3C processes (at least in the areas I'm interested in which excludes XML Protocols and the Semantic Web). 
 
DISCLAIMER: This is a personal opinion and does not reflect the intentions, opinions, plans or strategies of my employer. In fact, most of my co-workers sound just like Aaron Skonnard when I talk to them about the W3C. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@d...] 
	Sent: Mon 6/10/2002 8:01 AM 
	To: Dare Obasanjo; 'Rick Jelliffe'; xml-dev@l... 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE:  W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
	
	

	Wow! What politics would be of interest to the WG entity consisting of
	representatives from numerous competing organizations?
	
	If you're implying that individual organizations are playing politics,
	then of course I buy that but I find it hard to believe that
	representatives from individual organizations would have the skill to
	manipulate so many others.
	
	-aaron
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]
	>
	> The fact that a number of W3C Working Groups make a political decision
	to
	> create interdependencies amongst W3C recommendations (some of them
	even
	> circular) does not say anything about the technical merits of W3C XML
	> Schema. It is indeed an indictment of the W3C process and their idea
	of
	> "layered specs"
	>
	>       -----Original Message-----
	>       From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@d...]
	>
	>       > To the extent that that is the case, to say "XSD is here to
	stay"
	>       > 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: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• 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: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread