[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-frien dlypro

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Michael Champion <mike.champion@s...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:26:22 -0500

Reuse is the devil.  We faced the TIFF specs for faxes 
some years ago at GE for embedded IETMs.  They were cited 
but we had to dig out the fact of the 200dpi and explain
to the customer that was unacceptably low for the application:
(Good function, mediocre form, bad fit) because we were displaying 
schematics and 200dpi won't cut it.  OTOH, 1000dpi, the norm 
for print at that time was overkill.   300dpi, the average 
for laser printers then, was the sweet spot.

Reapplication, reuse, robustness, emergence per mixed requirements, 
these force one to understand the details.

If the schema language is too hard to design with *conceptually*, 
tools will make very little difference given equal features.  
On the other hand, acceptable difficulty and feature richness 
such that one tool can be reapplied in several domains, that 
is usually worth the cost.

*Any* design from *any* contributor, be they brilliant eccentric, 
majorCo, or mundane hacker with contextual inspiration, that does 
not take out cost in some form (not just cheaper, but amplification 
of effort), is just more stuff.  We already have TooMuchStuff.   

For XML Schema, Trex, Relax, whatever, to be 
killer, it must be directly applicable to immediate 
problems.  

For example, James says TREX is for validation., I have DTDs for that. 
TREX has to do more, not just be easier to do.  DTDs aren't hard 
now from the perspective of the language designer.   So, just as 
in the DePH myth, harder for whom?  More complex for whom?  

My intuition at the moment is the battle is between RDF and XML Schemas, 
not XML Schemas over all.

MSXML 4.0 is on the street with XSD support today.

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:mike.champion@s...]

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?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
    • From: Tony Presti <apresti@b...>

• Prev by Date: iFive Call for Speakers (San Jose, October 29-November 1)
• Next by Date: Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
• Previous by thread: iFive Call for Speakers (San Jose, October 29-November 1)
• Next by thread: Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread