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

RE: XML Schema considered harmful?

• To: 'Rick Jelliffe' <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XML Schema considered harmful?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 08:43:54 -0500

Concur.   That is the right approach.  James 
goes a bit over the top, but he is not wrong 
in that XML Schema is daunting for some and 
overkill for others.  However, I didn't find 
it hard to use for a relational system as you 
point out (big backend; money is irrelevant, 
though). Tools are a big help.  I don't see 
XML Schema as a favorite for the PFE/Notepad 
users.  

It is far easier to get confused when trying 
to figure out the combinations that allow 
namespace processing when XSLT and Schemas 
are both being used.   Having parsers that 
trip or are inconsistent using keywords to 
invoke behaviors is very disturbing.  So 
many work from coded examples (cut and 
paste mentality) and keeping up is hard.

So the bigger question here is just how 
convoluted the XML frameworks are going 
to be and how that affects each class 
of user.  XML Schema in and of itself 
is not harmful; XML systems may be.

len


From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

It would make more sense for the RFC to merely say something like
this

"Standard schema languages (E.g. ISO RELAX NG or W3C XML Schemas)
should be used in preference to proprietary or non-standard languages. 
Schema languages should be used conservatively: exotic or difficult or 
badly-described features may be badly implemented or used incorrectly 
or be difficult to diagnose."

• Prev by Date: Re: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schema considered harmful?
• Previous by thread: Tool to translate from one schema to another
• Next by thread: Re: [Sax-devel] Consensus? expected local name for non-namespace qualified elements
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread