[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: Is Web 2.0

• To: "Liam Quin" <liam@w...>,"Dave Pawson" <davep@d...>
• Subject: RE: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:34:57 -0700
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>,"Michael Champion" <michaelc.champion@g...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcWlCx/Y+u0bJkYiT2K3y0W6RTaIAAAHBpYw
• Thread-topic: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...] 
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:11 PM
> To: Dave Pawson
> Cc: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 'Michael Champion'; XML Developers List
> Subject: Re:  Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: 
>  Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
> 
> 
> With hindsight we can say XML could have been simpler, and so 
> could XML Schema.  This isn't unique to the W3C: FTP could be 
> simpler, and TCP (as in TCP/IP) had some features that turned 
> out not to scale well in all cases, such as "Slow Start".  
> The local building codes here in Ontario aren't the simplest 
> either.  But I'd rather have all of these things than not 
> have them at all, and in practice that's usually the choice.

Interesting. I'd rather not have XML Schema at all than have it exist in
its perfect form. In that case all we'd have is languages like XDR and
RELAX NG (aka the right tools for the job). 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving.  

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

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