[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Descriptio
I do understand that, Sean. I need a tool for many things I have to build, so that doesn't distress me. It distresses me if the thing to be built doesn't have to be so complex that it requires a tool. It distresses me if the timing for the "loud blast" is a year or so after release and fielding. Spilt milk but are we learning any lessons here? The tool is not the original problem but now that the recommendation has become viewed as a standard, the tools are developed and being sold, and we have people making use of XML Schema, we can't simply turn it off. We also, and rightly, can't allow it to be the only choice. Most of us have known since the early drafts that building XSD without tools would be hard slogging. I've done it and yeah, for a db of reasonable size but even little structural complexity, it is a bear. So is DHTML without a good tool. So problem one, lesson one, is that we should consider slowing down the spec or recommendation signoffs given a work that potentially touches a lot of components and users and markets. The W3C cannot be a bull in the world information system china shop. BTW: experts at the time told us the OSI network would be a big improvement over TCP/IP and the Internet. Did we throw baby out with the bathwater then to climb on the WWW juggernaut? I don't know, but I don't think source or historical success qualify as good metrics of technical quality. Let me say this again; if XML Schema is targeted to and useful by object and relational programmers, it has hit the largest market/mind share for such things. Is market success enough? If so, then we have to look at costs including effort and that includes as you say, apparency, clarity, ease of use and adoption, etc. If not, we don't have much to go on when it comes time to choose among schema options. I don't recommend it for document work and I'm not here to say "use XML Schemas because they are the W3C spec" or "because MS and Oracle like it" or any of that. I'm saying: we have it, we are using it, and we can't roll back the decisions at this point. We just have to make sure that options are available, understood, and noticed. I didn't say "James did the wrong thing"; I said, the wrong conclusions can be made of what he said simply because he said it. That's groupie thinking. I hope he gets free limos and bar service with it plus has a new album coming out soon. :-) So problem two: it does us not much good to plead authority. Authorities signed off on XML Schema and it still didn't make everyone happy and if we aren't careful, will be costly to fix. I can only suggest that the world standards groups stare into these problems a bit more seriously instead of working around cults of personality. From the shadow war to the scandals in the boardrooms, a call will be issued for better tools to get better transparency over processes and products whose use and fielding impact us globally. As the ecosystems specialists are now publishing that we are beginning to stress the planet with more take out than the system can replace, we might want to consider that there is also a finite amount of money for tools and for people to inspect and vette standards and specifications, so a similar budgetary problem is emerging. len -----Original Message----- From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...] [Len Bullard] >XML Schema >is out there, is apparently working for what it was designed >or, and for all the warts, is now in commercial products. >It is a viable option if a difficult one to comprehend at >first. I did not find it hard to apply once I had a decent >tool, but I don't accept that to mean it doesn't have warts. Don't you see the trap here - you *need* a tool in order to wield W3C XML Schema. The only way to grasp a W3C Schema is via a visualisation. You can stare at the text in Notepad until the cows come home without getting a feel for the model. This is a baaad thing. By contrast, with RelaxNG, tools are optional. Notepad is just fine for wrapping your head around what the schema means. Tools are good and useful but should be optional to understanding a schema language. Otherwise, the open systems, vendor/platform independence of the schema goes puff!
|
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
|