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

discarding WXS datatypes (was RE: modeling, validating)

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: discarding WXS datatypes (was RE: modeling, validating)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:38:22 -0400
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F80648449E@R...>

At 09:33 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>Yup, we've been here before. I probably have a list of issues with W3C XML 
>Schema that's as long as my arm but griping about some primitive types 
>that nobody uses simply because they represent clutter or an unclean 
>aesthetic model ranks low on my list.
>
>I've read Amelia's article and I consider it a tip of the iceberg. I've 
>mentioned to Edd that I'll probably write a follow up sometime in future 
>which clarifies why I consider complaints such as gHorribleKludge rants as 
>minor issues.

I've been thinking about this, and suspect that we have different 
perspectives on the nature of the problems.  I'll wager that your list of 
issues includes both Part 1 and Part 2.  Given that I've entirely written 
off Part 1, Part 2 is the remainder that I frequently have to deal 
with.  (I work with W3C XML Schema only when I'm forced to do so, and then 
only on a read-only basis - I use Trang to avoid having to do any modeling 
in WXS.)

gHorribleKludge may seem a minor issue in the context of the entire 
catastrophe, but from the perspective of someone who has already discarded 
Part 1, it's the start of an argument for discarding Part 2.  I think it's 
fair to say that a lot of people have already given up on Part 1 and better 
replacements are available, so my remaining question is what we can do to 
remove and replace Part 2.

(This does, of course, mean abandoning most specifications built on top of 
W3C XML Schema, which is unfortunate, but perhaps we can hope their 
creators will modularize them well enough to make their specs usable 
without a trace of WXS or its expectations anyhere.  I don't see that 
happening at present, unfortunately, so there may well be an enormous fork 
in the road here.)

It's (past) time for me to get back to work on some concrete proposals for 
alternatives.

• References:
  • RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: whitespace normalization (was Re: Create XML)
• Previous by thread: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread