[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: How to redesign W3C XML Schema (Water Contract)
If folks are looking for an XML schema that: 1. Is _much_ simpler than W3C XML Schema 2. Simpler than Relax NG or Schematron 3. Has an XML 1.0 syntax (as well as a ConciseXML syntax) 4. Supports both weakly-type semi-structured documents as well as strongly-typed data. 5. Is an open specification 6. Ability to embed within XML documents 7. Uses a simple, yet flexible type system I recommend folks look at Water Contract. http://www.waterlang.org/water_book_2002/ch05.pdf _Plusch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jochen Wiedmann" <joe@i...> To: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:27 AM Subject: Re: How to redesign W3C XML Schema (Was: Remembering the original XML vision) > Quoting Jonathan Robie: > > > But I would only support it if it had a prayer of being implemented and > > used. Remember that XML was a marketing coup as much as a technical coup - > > if we wanted to establish another schema language, we would have to find > > markets that desperately need it, and for whom existing solutions are > > painful enough to make them willing to change, and to abandon already > > accepted standards. Building a market like that takes time and energy. > > I understand the issue. However, much that has been said in this > thread about SGML reminds me very much about my current experiences > with XML Schema. > > IMO a good specification is a small specification. For example, the > old RFC's have typically been *very* small, compared to nowadays > nightmares. Standards like SMTP have of course evolved in time, > adding features over time. As David wrote: > > > I spent three months on and off trying to write an SGML parser in > > Java and never made much progress; I had the first working draft > > of AElfred done in an evening, and a quite usable parser in a couple > > of days (on top my regular work responsibilities at the time) > > I think the same can be said for the early versions of SMTP, POP3, > HTTP, and all that stuff. (At least for the protocol, of course it > is a different task to write an SMTP protocol handler than writing > Sendmail or MS Exchange.) > > IMO this can be said partially for XML (at least not for the DTD > related stuff), but not at all for XML Schema. I am currently working > since months on an implementation of JAXB (http://java.sun.com), which > is a fairly big specification in itself. But I can realistically *never* > expect to implement all the details of XML Schema, on which JAXB is > sitting, not even at the parser level. > > I am not so keen on the idea of supporting , and > all that stuff. But a simplification of XML Schema would make quite > some sense, much in the way of DocBook with its spinoff DocBook Lite.
|
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
|