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

RE: Lotsa laughs

• From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@i...>
• To: 'XML Dev' <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:32:43 +0100

Lisa Rein wrote:
> But let's just say for the sake of argument that the examples on the
> site were well-formed XML -- my question is this:   Just because the
> DOCUMENT examples they show are well-formed XML, isn't it the SCHEMAS
> that would be validating those documents that would be "breaking" the
> current implementations?  It was my understanding that, at this time,
> any schema syntax-based validation-mechanism, by definition, does not
> conform to the XML v. 1.0 Recommendation. Is this not true?

Interesting point - but then you could say that anything that uses
namespaces isn't completely 1.0.

> Also, on a less technical, more practical note: Why would 
> anyone want to
> put time into using the BizTalk schemas if they know are going to just
> have to redo them again when Microsoft, in good faith, changes the
> BizTalk schemas over to the W3C's Schema syntax?   Or the reverse of
> that would be - why would a microsoft-centric developer want to ever
> bbother changing over to the proper W3C syntax if they know that
> Microsoft will continue to build support for the original proprietary
> syntax into their products in order to keep them all
> backwards-compatible with the early implementations? (something MS
> swears by)

Again interesting. I've taken the view that although the schema
implementation with IE5 is incomplete and non-standard, the techniques I
have developed will transpose easily. Effectively I can extract the
schema for any part of my object database by asking for an object, and
all children and attributes come out automatically. Now, I could have
used DTDs, but I thought that no matter how different the syntax of the
final draft of schemas is, the principles will be pretty close, so I
decided to press ahead with the test stuff. So, to answer your question,
how much will I have to re-do on the day the schema standard is
confirmed, versus someone who is still using DTDs (because there is more
to it than a just a new syntax)?

I think there are no right answers here. My company is small enough that
I can make decisions like this, but if I was still in a large bank in
the City, or something, then I wouldn't touch any of this stuff for
another year.

> Why doesn't MS use the closest thing it can to the W3C Schema 
> syntax for
> now, if it can't wait --rather than an undefined mishmash of two W3C
> member submissions and one unfinished white paper from almost 
> year ago?
> BizTalk isn't due out till third quarter 99 -- how perfect, neither is
> the XML Schema Proposed Recommendation -- how about developing the
> BizTalk schemas in conjunction with the Schema Working Group 
> at the W3C
> so they are sure to match?! Hey!  THERE's an idea!

I sympathise with you, but I was under the impression that the W3C
didn't want to get involved with schemas as such.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: DTDs
• Next by Date: RE: A Proposal for Refactoring SAX
• Previous by thread: RE: Lotsa laughs
• Next by thread: Mainframe AutoTagging Tool
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread