[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Schemas Article
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. 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. 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...
|
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
|