Re: Document oriented experience reports anyone?
Just for a small example, how about a subset in which elementFormDefault="qualified" and attributeFormDefault="unqualified" are the default and only options, as the XML Namespaces spec envisioned? Bob Foster http://xmlbuddy.com/ Robin Berjon wrote: > Hi Henry, > > Henry S. Thompson wrote: > >> Robin Berjon writes: >> >>> * 85% of XML Schema is thoroughly useless and without value; >> >> >> Wow! Please identify the 15% you used -- there are lots of people >> interested in profiling XML Schema, your input would help. > > > I could identify the parts I used (elements, attributes, data types) and > the parts I was forced to use (complex types, the small subset you can't > get around) and while that would probably not amount to even 15% of the > text in part 1, it would not be very useful feedback for the profiling > you mention. > > To be perfectly honest regarding the feature-set of XML Schema, I am > told and can observe myself very regularly that people are using it to > map XML to databases, map XML to object systems, etc. and I find that > wonderful. Few specs get to have people do so many things with them, and > that should be celebrated. > > Me, I'm mostly interested in validating XML documents, or rather in the > ability to use a schema to describe as many aspects of its instances as > possible. And there are many aspects to a document. And, still being > honest, I'm still waiting for the W3C spec to do that. > > I don't want the features in there I don't need to go away. If people > are using them, they definitely need to stay. I do however want them out > of my sight, because I really don't want to have to deal with them if I > implement a schema processor. Also, I don't particularly want the > features I feel I missing to go into a monolithic XML Schema 2.0 spec > because I don't think that adding to the current weight is going to do > any good. > > All I'm, at heart, asking for, is modularization. Cut it up into small > manageable pieces, just like XML Schema was cut in two, but more so. And > then we can add all sorts of small modules of interest to various > communities. I understand the draw to have the One Schema Spec To > Describe All XML, but that's just not possible. Admitting defeat on that > front would be victory. The logic of interoperability seems to demand > one spec, but there are cases in which it simply won't work out. > > I can't believe how much heat the binary XML people are getting with > people saying that a generic solution can't be found there without any > of those people bringing any proof of that to the table, while no one > seems to notice that in a schema language, something as fundamemental as > local determinism makes it useless to people like me, and the lack > thereof makes it useless to others :) > > I think the DSDL effort gets it right by cutting things into smaller > bits. Whether it's the right way to cut things up is a topic for > discussion, but I really don't see how else we can go about this. > > There is a need for an interop spec, and that can remain the XML Schema > spec, including a number of modules by reference. But users just need to > pick the parts that are of use to them. Otherwise everyone will just be > using their own 15%, and the squirrels will come back. > >>> * the few useful features are weak and without honour; >> >> >> That seems harsh -- could you be a bit more specific? Take content >> models (I presume they're useful) -- what's weak and without honour >> about reconstructing sequence and choice, optionality and iteration, >> from DTDs into XML notation? > > > It is harsh, as any Klingon quote would be. You bring up notation and > it's definitely a part of it. At a very simple level, the descriptive > power to number of characters ratio just got lost between two keys on my > keyboard. But I guess everyone but me and the three other people > complaining uses IDEs and never sees the XML so it probably doesn't matter. > > On another level, I've created this cool vocabulary with which I'm doing > really cool stuff on the Web. I want a schema for it because validation > is good practice. Is there one single good reason why I should know what > "deterministic content model" means, or even hear that sentence uttered > if only once? > >>> * creating a modularized XML Schema is easier than with DTDs, but >>> nowhere near as simple as with RNG; >> >> >> Where does the difficulty lie -- notation or substance? > > > Allow me to answer with a question: where in XML Schema is NVDL? > >>> * tools like XML Spy that are supposed to help one write schemata will >>> produce very obviously wrong instances, meanwhile the syntax of XML >>> Schema was obviously produced by someone who grew up at the bottom of >>> a deep well in the middle of a dark, wasteful moor where he was >>> tortured daily by abusive giant squirrels and wishes to share his >>> pain with the world; >> >> >> That's me (although _my_ moor was very conservative, not wasteful at >> all :-) > > > A thatcherian moor? I had no idea, I am ever so sorry :) > >>> * the resulting schema is mostly useless anyway as there is no tool >>> available that will process it correctly. >> >> >> Really? Xerces, .NET, saxon, XSV don't count? > > > I should have dated the post more explicitly, it was about SVG 1.1, > which came out two years ago. Things are now better (though nowhere near > perfect). Nevertheless the amount of time it is still taking to get > reliable interoperability between implementations of a spec that has had > solid vendor support as few others have is an indication that something > is wrong with the spec. I don't pretend to know exactly where, but I'm > thinking the size and complexity of the spec don't help, especially when > most people just exercize small parts of it. I'm pushing the notion of > modularization (as others have before me) because I really think it's > the only way of making this manageable. > > I know my post was harsh, it wasn't personal but it certainly was deeply > heartfelt. I work for a company that uses XML Schema intensively, most > of the time other people's schemata. I've spent literally months of my > lifetime fixing schemata that "work in XML Spy" or "work in Xerces" but > simply weren't compliant at very simple level. Now that the tools are > better it's more about handling impossibly weird constructs that the > spec tolerates and obviously natural ones that it doesn't. Whenever I > open an XML Schema document, I twitch violently until I see > elementFormDefault="qualified" (and then I drool a bit, but that's > mostly for effect). Yes it's made me bitter at 28, and yes I see > xsi:type attributes attack me in my sleep, and yes RelaxNG has had none > of these side-effects. > > So please cut it down into small pieces that we can handle. *Please* > > I like you comparison with Java, having had a similar experience. I'm > personally expecting to start finding it usable in three or four > iterations. I'd just like that to happen several years earlier with XML > Schema :) >
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