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

Re: ISO schemaTron

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: ISO schemaTron
• From: Paul Downey <paul.downey@w...>
• Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:31:13 +0000
• Cc: "'G. Ken Holman'" <gkholman@C...>,xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC53@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC53@h...>

On 5 Dec 2005, at 15:46, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
[snip]

> We debated a reference implementation but that has a way of
> strangling innovation for qualities such as speed and ease
> of extensibility.  Over time, the open source implementation
> became the proving ground for those who require transparency
> of process and code.  That works reasonably well.
>
> It was the lack of clear open source that killed many an
> early SGML project some which have well-known names.  So
> while it is true that ISO does not endorse them, it is a
> good idea to have implementors working side by side with
> the standards members for reasons most of us here understand
> I'm sure.

I'm not keen on the idea of a 'reference implementation', but
I'm a big fan of 'test driven specification', by which I mean
if you can't test it, and don't have a test for it, it doesn't
belong in the spec. Interoperable specifications describe how
things should work, not how people should think about things:-

XML technologies that define the order of pointy-brackets in a
stream of bits are going to interoperate a whole lot better than
those that describe the expected firing of neurones in a bag of meat.

Paul

• References:
  • RE: ISO schemaTron
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Problem using xs:any
• Next by Date: status of OWL amidst other standards
• Previous by thread: RE: ISO schemaTron
• Next by thread: RE: ISO schemaTron
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread