Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema E
On 14 Jul 2005, at 20:38, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >> On 14 Jul 2005, at 05:02, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >> >>> "There appeared to be no obvious way to split the XML Schema >>> specification >>> into layers or sub-languages" >>> >>> So XML Schemas is such spaghetti that it cannot be untangled? Yikes. >>> But I don't believe it. >> >> The difficulty in splitting the spec into layers or shells is that >> there isn't consensus on which features are core and which are >> esoteric. You're 80 is my 20 was order of the day and highlighted >> in Paul Biron's summary of the experience reports. > > Err??, that quote came from you. If it not true now, please revise your > report! (Otherwise it just joins the morass of FUD against any change.) Yes, it does come from me, maybe we're talking at cross-purposes or maybe you're out to yellow-snow wash me ;-) The report does try to explain, there was no obvious way apparent to split the spec in terms of shells or layers of complexity, as with SVG or OWL. There was merit seen by many for 'domain specific' profiles, though there was general discomfort for these to rule out or constrain parts of Schema, only identify which parts are likely to be widely supported by, say, data binding tools. Given your strong and interesting views on this subject, it's a shame you weren't able to attend and stop what you see as 'group think'! Paul -- http://blog.whatfettle.com
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