Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: W3C XML Schema Questionaire
 Jonathan Robie wrote: > > A recent article on XML.com > (http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/07/05/specs/lastword.html) raises concerns > about the W3C XML Schema specification. As a member of the Schema WG, I'm > still deciding how to vote on moving Schema to CR. I would be interested in > hearing whether the members of this mailing list agree with the conclusions > in Liora's article. I am not doing this in any official capacity, I am > doing this because I want to know. > > I'm mainly interested in the opinions of people who have actually done > something with Schema. Please send your responses to me - I will tally the > results and post them to this mailing list, and will also report them to > the Schema Working Group. > > For each of these questions, check as many boxes as apply, and feel free to > add comments. > > 0. How would you describe yourself? > > [y ] Programmer > [y ] Software Architect > [y ] Consultant > [ ] XML content developer > [ ] Web developer > [ ] Database developer > [y ] Other (please describe) boat rocker and XML advocate in www.ie.com - currently involved in legacy financial system and content management integration! > > 1. What have you done with Schema? > > [ ] I have read the working drafts. (I have *attempted* to read the WDs - I have retreated to experimenting against the online validator) > [y ] I have written schemas based on the Working Drafts. > (Roughly how many schemas have you written?) 5, but smallish > [y ] I have written schemas in other schema languages such > as SOX, RELAX, or XML Data Reduced. DCD, used as human readable specs, for cross-company cross-language integration > [y ] I am writing software based on schemas > (Please describe this software, unless it is confidential.) > > 2. Have you used XML parsers that support Schema? If so, which ones? No, just the online validator > > 3. Do you plan to use Schema? > > [y ] I, or my company, will write software based on Schema. > [y ] I, or my company, will depend on software based on Schema. > [y ] I, or my company, will need to write Schemas. > [ ] We will probably use schemas, but are not dependent on them. > [ ] DTDs are adequate for my needs. > [ ] I do not know at this time. > > 4. Which of the following best captures your feelings about the current > state of Schema: > > [y ] We like it, and would like to see it become a recommendation in its > current form. > [ ] We like it, but we think it needs some changes. > [ ] We need something like Schema, but it needs serious work. > [ ] We do not need anything beyond DTD's. > > 5. In general, do you think Schema is feature-rich enough? > > [ ] Schema supports all the features I really need, but I would prefer more. > [y ] Yes, Schema supports all the features I would like. > [y ] Schema supports features that I am unlikely to use. > > 6. Is the design of Schema too complex? > > [ ] Schema is not complex. > [y ] Schema is complex, but the features it offers justify this complexity. > [ ] Schema is much too complex, even for the features it offers. > > 7. How important is it to release Schema quickly? > > [y ] It is vital to ship Schema quickly, even if there are flaws. > [ ] It is vital to make sure Schema is good, even if it takes longer. > > 8. Feature set > > 8.a. Which of the following features do you anticipate using? > > [y ] XML notation for schemas. > [y ] Data types. > [y ] Schema composition. > [y ] Identity constraints. > [y ] Refinement. > [ ] Element equivalence classes. > [ ] Attribute-group definitions. > [ ] Nulls and nullability. > [ ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document. > > 8.b. Which of the following features seem to be unnecessary? > > [ ] XML notation for schemas. > [ ] Data types. > [ ] Schema composition. > [ ] Identity constraints. > [ ] Refinement. > [ ] Element equivalence classes. > [ ] Attribute-group definitions. > [ ] Nulls and nullability. > [ ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document. Sorry, just don't know enough about the features I'm not using to answer this - some of these blanks are nulls... > > 8.c. Which of the following features should be removed from the 1.0 > specification, and added to release 2.0 after the development community has > had time to experiment with the concepts? > > [ ] XML notation for schemas. > [ ] Data types. > [ ] Schema composition. > [ ] Identity constraints. > [ ] Refinement. > [y ] Element equivalence classes. > [ ] Attribute-group definitions. > [ ] Nulls and nullability. > [y ] Use of schemaLoc to associate schema with document. > > 8.d. Are there important features that Schema is missing, and must have for > a 1.0 release? If so, please list them. > > 9. Readability of Specifications > > 9.a. Schema 0: Primer > > Overview: were you able to get the big picture? > Yes [y ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to > look something up? > Yes [ ] 1 [y ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out? > Yes [ ] 1 [y ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable? > Yes [ ] 1 [y ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Overall, which of the following statements do you most agree with: > > [ ] This is well written and helpful. > [ ] It may not win the Pulitzer Prize, but it does the job. > [y ] There are shortcomings, but it is usable. > [ ] I found it hard to understand some key concepts. > [ ] Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this > document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released. > > 9.b. Schema 1: Structures > > Overview: were you able to get the big picture? > Yes [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [y ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to > look something up? > Yes [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [y ] 5 No > > Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out? > Yes [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [y ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable? > Yes [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ y ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > [ ] This is well written and helpful. > [ ] It may not win the Pulitzer Prize, but it does the job. > [ ] There are shortcomings, but it is usable. > [y ] I found it hard to understand some key concepts. > [y ] Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this > document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released. OTOH I could live with it being the reference doc if there was a authorative user guide (not intro) which followed the golden rule: - explain the problem - illustrate the problem - explain the solution - illustrate how the solution solves the problem > > 9.c. Schema 2: Datatypes > > Overview: were you able to get the big picture? > Yes [ ] 1 [y ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Ease of Reference: were you able to find information when you needed to > look something up? > Yes [ ] 1 [y ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Level of Detail: were the important details spelled out? > Yes [ ] 1 [y ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > Readability: compared to other technical specifications, was it understandable? > Yes [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [y ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 No > > [ ] This is well written and helpful. > [y ] It may not win the Pulitzer Prize, but it does the job. > [ ] There are shortcomings, but it is usable. > [ ] I found it hard to understand some key concepts. > [ ] Readability seriously interferes with the purpose of this > document. This really needs to be rewritten before it is released. > > 10. What do you think the Schema WG should do: > > [ ] Ship as soon as possible, without significant change. > [ ] Ship as soon as possible, making the prose more readable, > but without changing the design of schema itself. > [y ] Keep the current feature set, take one more shot to improve > both the design of schema and the prose. > [ ] Simplify the feature set, take one more shot to improve both the > design of schema and the prose. > > 11. If the Working Group were to spend time redesigning Schema, > what do you think we should spend our time doing? Knock up some knock-out use-cases and validate the feature set and documentation against them > > 12. If you feel the Working Group should continue working on Schema, > how long would you be willing to wait for an improved version of XML Schema? > > [ ] Shoot the engineer and ship it now! > [y ] 6 months > [ ] 12 months > [ ] 18 months > [ ] 24 months > > Jonathan > -- Francis Norton. Defy Convention? Deify Convention! *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ *************************************************************************** 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
