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

RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO

• To: "Jeff Rafter" <lists@j...>,"Michael Champion" <michaelc.champion@g...>
• Subject: RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:43:56 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcTAhPDcRuRj3FlCQxSNWG9xM+UdDQAAHCWw
• Thread-topic: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rafter [mailto:lists@j...] 
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 6:38 PM
> To: Michael Champion
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
> 
> 
> I wasn't at the conference, but read most of the blogging 
> that I could find coming out of it-- I distinctly remember 
> reading an opposing viewpoint... I will have to hunt it out-- 
> IIRC the comments about Scott and Patrick's use of XML Schema 
> were, in general, extremely positive (except from Don). 
> Having missed it I wonder if it was as anti-schema as you describe..

The talks were dominated by tools vendors and implementers. They almost
universally dislike schema since they've dealt with its unnecessary
complexity yet significant lack of expressivity first hand. However this
doesn't mean there aren't customers who aren't being productive using
W3C XML Schema related technologies and APIs. 

Lots of our Microsoft's developers love the XML<->Object mapping
features of the System.Xml.Serialization.XmlSerializer class. Being the
jaded implementer I am all I see is limitations and design flaws. 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Never eat yellow snow.       

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
• Next by Date: RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
• Previous by thread: RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
• Next by thread: RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread