[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] > > From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...> > > > Wow, talk about taking out of context. You managed to turn an over > > two thousand word email in support of the IETF's endorsement of > > W3C XML Schema into an indictment of it. > > I am not indicting XML Schemas, nor saying that posting indicts it. I have > repeatedly said I think XML Schemas should be good for particular tasks. I > am on friendly relations with several members of the Schemas WG, which I > participated on, and I wish it well and I respect them. My company has two > products that use it. Exactly. Remember that Don's original comments on XML Schema were addressed specifically towards Web Services, a task where we clearly need a rich type system to achieve interoperability between toolkits and other applications that cross programming language specific type systems. > What I am saying, and I have yet to meet any users in the industrial > publishing industry who disagrees, is that XML Schemas is deficient to the > point of irrelevence for a large niche, and that the answer is not to > bloat it but to build a schema language on a modular framework. I am only > against XML Schemas to the extent that I am for plurality and richness; in > other words, I am only opposed to XML Schemas to the extent that it is > pushed as a universal schema language that cannot tolerate alternatives. I wouldn't call the WS community a large niche. <snip/> > > Saying XSD 2.0 will > > add features not in XSD 1.0 does not translate into XSD is not here > > to stay in any way, shape or form. > > The way things normally work, one would expect the version 1.1 of > something to be either backwards or forwards compatible, but the version > 2.0 to be a reformulation, and certainly not necessarily compatible in > syntax or components. > > I don't believe that the XML Schema WG would be willing to make > any undertaking that XML 2.0, if it is ever made, will be a superset > of XML 1.n in its syntax, its components, its semantics, or even its > outcomes. > > To the extent that that is the case, to say "XSD is here to stay" is > a statement of branding and power rather than anything concerning > technical merits or compatability. The fact that the W3C has assumed XML Schema in layered specs like XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XML Query (the original argument) says a lot about the technical merits considering the W3C process. -aaron
|
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
|