[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: more grist
At 09:28 AM 3/6/2001 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > > The way I read Simon's article (and the position I defend), it's not a > > criticism of W3C XML Schema, but the fact that other applications will > > become dependent on W3C XML Schema. > >In so far as they do, it's because they have requirements that can >best be satisfied that way. The alternative (e.g. for XML Query and >XML Protocols) would be to define their own, incompatible with XML >Schema or each other, type system. Surely _that_ would be a step >backward. I'm afraid that's a matter of perspective at best. Those who set the requirements may see this as a gain for their particular projects, but they seem blissfully unaware of the cost this imposes on other developers - both creators and users of XML tools. It isn't just a matter of "you don't have to use this feature if you don't want to" - it's a matter of creating a deeply intertwingled infrastructure with features that create genuine confusion, chaos, and implementation difficulty. The "layering" proposed in these specs looks just plain broken to me, for reasons we've gone over repeatedly in the last few weeks. Then there's the matter of driving the deeply unpopular (in many quarters) W3C XML Schema specification into every other W3C specification. At a time when XML Schema is facing (widely welcome) competition from other specifications, integrating it with other W3C specifications feels like a major risk, if not an outright political move to push XML Schema across the board. Interesting times. Simon St.Laurent Associate Editor O'Reilly and Associates
|
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
|