• From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
• To: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:11:46 -0600

I don't find them abusing it but I don't see nearly as much XML as I once
did.  It is pretty neatly hidden in the systems I am using.  The big rash of
schema development is a few years behind my industry and we are in the
implementation phase.  The stuff I want to avoid are the huge XSD
objectMonsters created by committees who referenced the naming standards
from other committees that layer by layer create names from hell.

So the phrase, 'compatible' over 'compliant', meaning what comes in on the
wire will validate if you care to, but my database structures are local,
efficient and relational.   In other words, realism about how over-the-wire
is actually developed.  Hint:  it isn't a blind exchange.  In practice, one
almost always knows what the consumer wants.

I think you are on your way to more consensus than resistance at least among
the cognoscenti.   Keep the features discussion going and be slow and cold
in examining each change you propose.   Every time we've gone round this
track, we get a little closer to the sweet spot of features vs cost to
implement and deploy new (I hate to use the phrase next-generation) XML
systems.

Lose DTDs and there is no safety net.   On the other hand, that may force
the schema cognoscenti to clamor to fill that space by competing to lean out
their application languages.  Remember, these ARE application languages, not
XML, and they are not as old or as mature.  So it will take some time to
catch up.  The question to ask is what happens in that chasm while XML The
Pure Syntax Spec gets implemented and the Schema devs are debating?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: bryan rasmussen [mailto:rasmussen.bryan@g...] 
 
>
>  My problem with the subset idea is simply what this thread usually
produces:
>  it's tough to get buy in on what to leave in or leave out.   IME, DTDs
are
>  more likely to be understood by non-XML-Dev developers than XSD, yet it
is
>  always top of the death list.

Understood implies correct usage. This might be so just because so
many of the early books focus on DTDs, as for XML Schema I suppose a
subset of XML Schema could be understood just as easily as a DTD, but
unfortunately there isn't a subsetted spec.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.