Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,at least
 Hi Rick, Do you have references availible for this (I would like to use it in the conclusion of a paper): > but it takes six years for software > to become > mature; I do not understand what a databinders profile is. Do you refer to the an idea of a partition of XML Schema as in OWL (DL/Lite) Please clearify. Was there (at any time since Rec-Status or even before) a general notion that XML Schema could be seperated by features into Basic/Advanced or some similar divison. Thank you, Gregor 2005/4/29, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>: > Bob Foster wrote: > > > Oh, is that the point the REC is very clear on? ;-} > > Perhaps Henry is using "clear" in the sense that a needle in a haystack > is clear > when you sit on it :-) > > But the root problem isn't the needle nor the organization of the haystack, > it is the size of the haystack (i.e., the technology's size hinders > efforts to fully > implement it, defeating the goal of certainty which should be the > primary goal > of a schema language; especially because it is under-layered.) > > I don't want to be a broken record, but it takes six years for software > to become > mature; so, for libraries and applications, XML is mature, XML > Schemas still > has 2 years to go, and XQuery has maybe 7 years to go. Caveat emptor: > when you use semi-mature technologies you will have problems that you > wouldn't (or shouldn't) have with mature technologies. Even if XML Schemas > were layered properly and more explicable, we still would be having a > certain > amount of interoperability issues just attributable to immaturity. The > same issue > affects RELAX NG, Schematron, ATMs, and any software: any "I told you > so" feeling from those of us who complained about the size of XML Schemas > (or its goals) early and often should be tempered by that. The real > test will > come in a couple of years time: if there are still interop problems by > the time > XML Schemas software should be mature, I think it would clearly show > that the technology is intrinsically flawed, at least as far as layering > goes, > and in need of a thorough revision or refactoring. Until then, trying to > get > a Databinder's Profile (Common XML Schemas?) is probably more rational. > > Cheers > Rick Jelliffe > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > > 
|
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
|
|||||||||
