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

Re: Schemas Article

• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 23:59:43 +0200

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Or maybe the SGMLers were right all along
> except for requiring them in every case.
> Well-formedness is a coding freedom not
> necessarily extended to the user of the
> coded message but even the SGMLers know
> it isn't required to read the document
> in every case.
> 
> Somewhere the contract for communicating for
> the duration should be expressed.  

Not for every kind of applications.

Would you have written this mail if you had needed to write a schema to
formalize a contract making sure the every reader in the world will
understand each of the words in the same way you've wanted to express
them?

Communication without contracts is what has enabled the progresses made
by the humanity (sorry for the lawyers who read this sentence)...

> Lighter or
> heavier makes no difference to the necessity
> to trust AND verify except where trust is
> proven to work and you can afford the occasional
> defection.
> 
> Besides, XML Schema is just an
> application of XML.  People are free to
> ignore it.  They just aren't free to improve it.

Today, yes it's still the case.

Will it still be if W3C XML Schema becomes a foundation of XML as shown
by Tim Berners-Lee?

Eric
 
> Unless directed otherwise.
> 
> "It is good to be king." - Mel Brooks
> 
> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
> 
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:30 PM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re: Schemas Article
> 
> "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> >
> > Note:  www.eweek.com May 28, 2001 has some
> > articles on XML Schema.  Mostly hype.  It is
> > weird to see almost exactly the same diagrams
> > for XML Schema + XML as were created for
> > DTDs + SGML over ten years ago.
> 
> Yes, they are right: this is the point.
> 
> Generalizing the usage of any schema language is like reintroducing
> mandatory DTDs.
> 
> And it's not unlike going back toward SGML...
> 
> > Maybe it will work this time now that
> > programmers labelled the diagrams instead
> > of lawyers and technical writers. :-)
> 
> Maybe we need this pain to enjoy the freedom of a new lightweight flavor
> of markup language without W3C XML Schema in one or two years time...
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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...

-- 
Pour y voir plus clair dans la nebuleuse XML...
                                          http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• References:
  • RE: Schemas Article
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: XML Testing
• Next by Date: Re: Complex type inheritance is evil!
• Previous by thread: RE: Schemas Article
• Next by thread: RE: Schemas Article
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread