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

RE: xml schema

• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>,"Maciejewski, Thomas" <Thomas.Maciejewski@l...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: xml schema
• From: "Paul Brown" <prb@f...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:59:30 -0400
• Thread-index: AcJQVdmBMJvcxhJYTQ6RbJcExTtx/QAAC1jgAAAPViA=
• Thread-topic: xml schema

> > [ Maciejewski, Thomas ]
> > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/06/06/schemasimple.html
> [ Dare Obasanjo ]
> From the author's description at 
> http://www.xml.com/pub/au/105 it is noted that he is on the 
> OASIS Technical Committee for a competing schema language, 
> RELAX NG as well as a developer for a RELAX NG tool. 

That's not entirely fair...  Kohsuke Kawaguchi has developed tools for WXS and other schema languages, too.

Once upon a time, I taught a undergraduate course on C/C++ and told the students that as far as I was concerned function pointers and multiple inheritance didn't exist within the confines of the course; in that context, it was a hammer without a nail that was guaranteed to be used incorrectly.

I think the thing that Kohsuke Kawaguchi is angling at the article is quite similar: unless you know enough to know that you need the more esoteric features of complex types, then the best thing for you to do is to pretend that they don't exist.  It's a slippery-when-wet-in-my-opinion sign as opposed to a do-not-enter.

I don't share that opinion of complex types in WXS, but as with SAX, XSLT, DOM, namespaces, etc. I definitely agree that there are plenty of details to trip the uninitiated.  (It occurs to me that one only really gets initiated by tripping-up, but that's philosophy as opposed to XML...)

	-- Paul

• Prev by Date: RE: what parsers support xml schema
• Next by Date: Re: Is W3C Losing the Plot?
• Previous by thread: RE: xml schema
• Next by thread: inheritance by restriction
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread