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

RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: James Clark <jjc@j...>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@c...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:40:27 -0600

True enough, James, and that is precisely what was 
said for SGML DTDs.

Here is the rub:  the W3C specs continue to wander 
and it is hard to tell if this is improvement.  It 
seems the "simple is better" approach leads to 
"discoverable requirements" and while that lends 
some comfort to those who like the specification 
process, it is turning the W3C specs into some 
of the most expensively implemented systems of 
all time.  The continuous do-overs come at 
considerable cost to the entities that must 
do them and use them.

How is this to be resolved?  It isn't only a 
technical problem now.  It is leading some 
to question if the open specifications from 
closed consortia can be relied upon to deliver 
the sanity in standards promised, or the reliable 
technology needed.

Some companies have to deliver on time and 
within budget.  Increasingly, as with the 
browser wars, the only way to do this is to 
commit to the company, not the specification or 
the specification organization.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@j...]

It is clear to me XML Schema as it stands *is* useful.  However, it's
also clear to me that there is the potential to create a schema language
(or perhaps family of languages) for XML that is significantly better
that XML Schema as it stands and that satisfies the requirements placed
on XML Schema. I am content to have XML Schema as it stands now, so long
as that doesn't prevent the XML community getting something better in
the future.  In particular,  I hope that:

(a) overly tight coupling between other W3C specs and XML Schema 1.0
will be avoided

(b) future versions of XML Schema will not be constrained to be 100%
compatible with XML Schema 1.0; the requirement for any future version
should be that it be possible automatically to translate XML Schema 1.0
into that future version

This will allow the potential for the creation of a better schema
language to be realized to the maximum extent possible in future
versions of XML Schema.

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX InputSource and character streams
• Next by Date: Re: SAX InputSource and character streams
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX InputSource and character streams
• Next by thread: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread