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

Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XML Schema Q

• To: Betty Harvey <harvey@e...>
• Subject: Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XML Schema Question
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:50:44 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311251358510.1455-100000@e...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311251358510.1455-100000@e...>

At 2:26 PM -0500 11/25/03, Betty Harvey wrote:


>If DTD's are what we work with, I would agree that we have made it easier.
>However, I believe that DTDs may be on their deathbed and are now
>considered deprecated or legacy.  The reality is that most organizations
>are using schema's for all "new" projects.  The U.S. Government recommends
>the use of W3C Schemas
>

I do not consider DTDs at all deprecated or legacy. I know the 
opposite opinion is out there, but it's wrong. I wrote about this in 
Chapter 24 of Effective XML (not online yet, sorry), and I have been 
careful in all my talks about schemas to make sure that everyone 
knows they are not a replacement for DTDs.

I also see a lot of evidence that the W3C XML Schema Language is 
losing the schema wars to RELAX NG. Many high profile groups have 
chosen to adopt RELAX NG for their schema needs rather than the W3C 
XML Schema Language. The prime reason for the W3C XML Schema 
Language's current and, I think, transitory prominence is merely the 
W3C imprimatur. Among developers who realize they have a choice, the 
choice is increasingly likely to be RELAX NG.

I also suspect that the majority of XML doesn't have any any schema 
at all in any language. Certainly very little of my own does, and 
what does is more likely than not invalid. The assumption that some 
form of schema is necessary is a common flaw in many developers' 
initial assumptions about XML. The real innovation of XML was not 
making the DTDs simpler. It was making them optional. Documents that 
do not have document type declarations are incredibly interoperable, 
with almost no room for parser differences in interpretation. All the 
different possible parsings of an XML document arise only in the 
presence of a DTD or some other schema. Without a schema, the 
document is simply what it is, no ifs, ands, or buts.

-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• References:
  • Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XMLSchema Question
    • From: Betty Harvey <harvey@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XMLSchema Question
• Next by Date: Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XML Schema Question
• Previous by thread: Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XMLSchema Question
• Next by thread: Re: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XML Schema Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread