[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: most contested area of xml schema interoperability?
At 02:27 PM 6/9/2003 +0200, bryan wrote: >I was hoping someone could send me some pointers to interesting parts of >the xml schema [expletive deleted] perma-thread with special attention given to >contested areas of the specification leading to vendor incompatible >implementations. I'm not prepared to send all the pointers, but I think these are the biggest items: 1. Part 1, which governs complex types, is very difficult to read. It uses a descriptive mechanism that lacks both the precision of formal notation and the easy readability of well written prose. I have a hard time finding things in the spec. 2. The XML representation is hard to read and write. The verbosity is also a problem - it is hard, for instance, to show examples in W3C XML Schema notation in the text of an article or chapter. 3. The type hierarchies are not simple - the distinct hierarchies for complex and simple types and the distinction between elements and complex types result in a more cluttered type system than that found in most OO or relational systems. This is not the kind of type lattice that a good datahead would normally design. 4. There is no normalized form that can be accessed as XML, and many ways to express the same facts, so schemas are hard to query or manipulate with tools. 5. For many document-oriented applications, especially those which do not need types, W3C XML Schema has few advantages over DTDs. 6. For applications which need only the addition of simple types to structures, W3C XML Schema is a big step in additional complexity, most of which is not needed for these applications. 7. The complexity has important costs. Implementing W3C XML Schema is beyond most small software development groups. The implementations of larger vendors are not as compatible as users would like. There is follow-on complexity for other specifications that must support W3C XML Schema. Despite these flaws, it is the only schema language besides DTDs that has been widely adopted in commercial tools. I think many people use tools to generate their schemas, which makes it easier to author them and makes the XML notation somewhat less of an issue. Tutorials are now making it easier to learn for people who can't read the spec. I don't think it is an ideal schema language, but it is widely supported, and it does handle most cases well enough that it is unlikely that vendors will discard it. Hope this summary is useful, Jonathan
|
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
|