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

Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?

• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@a...>
• Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:48:06 -0600

Paul Grosso wrote:

> It would have been nice if Schema 1.0 had been something minimal
> based on "DTD capabilities in XML instance syntax plus some basic
> data types".  Then not only would it have been available long
> ago...

Isn't that about what x-schemas were per the open list (ask Simon) that 
started working on them before they became a W3C work project?

Paul, you've done this long enough to know the way of it. 
SAX works.  A net protocol for SGML could have worked.  Lots 
of good ideas would have worked but we stuck to our organizations 
and our committees and our MEGO documents.

It might be time to change.

I'm not working on a revolution; maybe a seachange, a realization 
among us that the closed committee way is not working.  Maybe 
something like SAX, the benevolently lead, slightly dictatorial 
but totally exposed way works best.  So far, it produced HTML, VRML  
and SAX.  So far these have worked.  The thing that does not 
work is "Internet Time".  How about just "internet process"?  
We yak until we get rough consensus and some running code.

Tell me, can groves be applied and if they can, is there 
a good reason to do it?  Anyone?

len

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
    • From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>

• References:
  • Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
    • From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Power of Groves
• Next by Date: Re: The Power of Groves
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread