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

Re: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friendlyprodu

• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:22:28 -0700 (PDT)

I think this is very wonderfully said. Yes, it is in almost every one's
mind, but I sincerely wonder if there is a single researcher who is not
worried about XML Schema.

The one problem which could be slightly grave is the reliance of other XML
specifications such as XPath 2.0 requirements, XML Query Algebra etc on
XML Schema. I hope there is not too much coupling of other specifications
with XML Schema, and I think the people in these WGs are very aware of
Schema defects, so they will do the best they can, though they are
severely tied.

regards - murali.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Eric van der Vlist wrote:

> Michael Champion wrote:
>
> .../...
> > Anyone want to pick up the thread ... is something like W3C XML Schema a
> > "good thing" after all if it can be wrapped up in user-friendly tools? Or is
> > its "power" (aka "complexity") too great to fully encapsulate inside a
> > friendly interface?
>
> I don't think that the success or failure of W3C XML Schema will come
> from its technical qualities or defects, but like it is the case with
> hardware or software products, from its marketing.
>
> Good thing or bad thing, W3C XML Schema is likely to succeed whatever
> you put under the cover!
>
> Marketed as "XML Schema", it is already in most of the people mind
> (except maybe on this list), THE schema language to use for XML, just
> because it is proposed by the W3C, the same organization that has
> published XML.
>
> Most of the people tend to prefer buying all their technologies from the
> same supplier to avoid the nightmare of integrating products from
> different vendors and will "buy" W3C XML Schema with XML for the same
> reason they've been using SQL*Forms, Visual Basic or DB2 on
> mainframes...
>
> This is a huge responsibility for the Schema Working Group since it
> means that the defects of W3C XML Schema will be perceived by most as
> defects of XML.
>
> I think there are still 2 useful tasks that can be done by independent
> developers, though.
>
> One is to develop other schema languages that we can used for our own
> purpose and that may inspire future releases of W3C XML Schema but won't
> probably get a significant "market share" compared to W3C XML Schema.
>
> The other is to try to find the best ways to use W3C XML Schema with its
> defects.
>
> That being said, it's not its power that frighten me but its rigidity
> and the fact that it cannot describe all the flavors of XML.
>
> Eric
> --
> See you in Hong Kong for www10:
>                      http://www.www10.org/program/w10-half-tut.shtml#ta5
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
> http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...
>

• References:
  • Re: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
• Next by Date: RE: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
• Previous by thread: Re: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
• Next by thread: Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread