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

Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)

• To: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>
• Subject: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:13:03 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Organization: BAH
• References: <1a7.13eb056a.2becbbcb@a...> <3EBBA47A.C21740C1@b...> <002101c3162b$ee1675c0$a000a8c0@SeairthA31>

<Quote>
If someone were to suggest the creation of a "simplified" subset of XML
Schema
</Quote>

Thanks Seairth - I should clarify that I was not suggesting the creation
of a subset, but merely individual user design choices based on the
total specification. I view the fact that such design choices can be
made as a testament to the flexibility of W3C Schema.

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> 
> From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
> >
> > <Quote>
> > A significant number of people don't want or need the complexity that
> > W3C XML Schema brings.
> > </Quote>
> >
> > Absolutely true. But I also believe that the specification is broad
> > enough to allow people a wide range of usage choices, from very simple
> > to highly complex. Some may choose, for example, to "restrict" their
> > usage to global elements referenced within content models with no regard
> > to any relationship between content models, while others may choose to
> > use the more "advanced" features such as abstract elements/datatypes,
> > substitutionGroups, extension/restriction, etc. to accomplish what they
> > need to accomplish.
> >
> > So, in summary, I've always believed that the W3C Schema specification
> > can be viewed as complex, but it is also flexible enough to offer a wide
> > range of usage choices to accomodate many design tastes.
> 
> Except that there is a *strong* resistance within the xml community to
> subset specifications.  As a result, there's an "all or nothing" attitude
> that dominates the acceptance of specifications, tools, etc.  If someone
> were to suggest the creation of a "simplified" subset of XML Schema, do you
> know what we would end up with?  Another permathread.
> 
> ---
> Seairth Jacobs
> seairth@s...
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@b...
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard

• References:
  • Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Next by Date: Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
• Previous by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Next by thread: Re: Is XML Doomed ...? (Was: Polemicism)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread