[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
thanks -- I agree that i seem to be interested in only *one* aspect -- supporting operations. I consider it very important, though. i fully agree that most specifications are based on speculative analysis -- how much can be speculated is always an issue. The final convergence point is not clear at least to me. I will hope that finally the schema will be good -- i am doubtful, but i am quite sure that the only solution will be to revert back to the rich literature on regular tree languages -- also hope that we can satisfy all the requirements. I will request the schema people to try to read the material on regular tree/hedge languages -- i think it mostly will turn out to be important. thanks and regards - murali. On Thu, 31 May 2001, Rick Jelliffe wrote: > From: "Murali Mani" <mani@C...> > > > I also *fully* agree that RELAX NG is the most important thing that is > > happening at present. > > But the point is that it is _still_ happening: the different flavours of > RELAX were not good enough for James' criteria so he made TREX; TREX is not > good enough for Murata-san so they are co-operating on developing it > further, over at OASIS. > > If James, one of the keenest technocrats around, is still working on a > language after more than a decade experience with DTDs, with reviewing the > efforts of the XML Schemas WG, and after consideration of the seminal DSD > and RELAX, what does that suggest? > > It suggests to me that _any_ standard for schemas must be considered either > premature or interim, at the current time. And this is exactly the approach > that the XML Schema WG has taken: XML Schemas 1.0 is provisional both in > small matters (because of the work of XML Schemas 1.1) and in larger > matters (the mooted XML Schemas 2.0). > > Murali carpets W3C XML Schemas as bad, but he is in fact only interested in > one area of them. The areas of datatyping, schema construction, keyrefs, > name handling have all been pretty well received: even though they are all > amenable improvement (respectively localizable datatypes, modules, better > keyrefs, status of schemaLocation). (These are things I hope XML Schemas > 1.1 will improve.) > > The areas that have not been well received are > -- perceived complexity of the spec (though complexity of the spec and > complexity of the technology are not at all the same thing: looking at the > two diagrams in the specs shows there is not spaghetti at the top-levels) > -- type derivation (is it very useful for non-databases?) > -- the details of the grammar (is it overly > restictive/under-powered/unreasonable) > > I don't see RELAX NG as a competitor to XML Schemas; to the contrary, I > think we can only ascend to XML Schemas 2.0 when there are credible > alternative languages developed and deployed, by which we can judge XML > Schemas 1.n. (It is dialectic development.) > > So RELAX NG is the best friend of the XML Schema WG, in the long run: it is > their unofficial research lab. I don't know if Murata-san works on company > time on RELAX-NG, but I were his manager at IBM I would allot him spend as > much time as possible on it, because of IBM's commitment to XML Schema. If > he is working on company time, then IBM should be congratulated. > > RELAX NG may be just as important for XML Schemas 2.0 as the XML Schemas 1.1 > standards work. But I hope deployment experience from XML Schemas 1.n will > be much more influential than any speculative analysis: I think speculative > analysis is the methodology used both in XML Schemas and RELAX NG and > ultimately it provides no guarantee of producing a productive result. When > a spec is made by committees sitting around the globe making up user > requirements on the spot as needed to justify their technological and > aesthetic predelictions, with no regard for how humans think and act, the > emperor has no clothes, no matter how relaxing he may find it. > > An alternative take on all this would be that, if grammars (one of the most > exhaustively studied abstractions) introduce problems (such as the problem > with > adding or substracting schemas from each other) that are still (after 16+ > years of schema language development) then perhaps they are dense and > compelling distractions which are actively preventing us from adopting more > straightforward > schema paradigms. > > Cheers > Rick Jelliffe > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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... >
|
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
|