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

Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: IsWeb 2.0

• To: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Subject: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: IsWeb 2.0 the new XML?
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 03:21:08 +0200
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <20050819221103.GI26803@w...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07207291@h...> <1124475313.3639.53.camel@marge> <20050819221103.GI26803@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Liam Quin wrote:
> Ask any W3Cer about Life After Wreck.

:)

> With hindsight we can say XML could have been simpler, and so could
> XML Schema.

There's a question of degree though. XML could have been simpler, XML 
Schema could have been graspable by more than a select elite. I don't 
think anyone is asking for perfect specs, just ones that are well, less 
painful in some cases.

>  This isn't unique to the W3C

No, but the price you pay for being relevant is that we complain about 
you :)

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Senior Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

• References:
  • RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is
• Next by Date: RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by thread: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: IsWeb 2.0 the new XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread