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

Re: XML Schema is not yet widespread??

• To: Adi Eio <adieio@g...>
• Subject: Re: XML Schema is not yet widespread??
• From: James Fuller <jim.fuller@r...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:50:59 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <bfe0d99605031605081522fee3@m...>
• Organization: Webcomposite
• References: <bfe0d99605031605081522fee3@m...>
• Reply-to: jim.fuller@r...
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Adi Eio wrote:

>Hi
>  
>
Hello Adi,

>I was wandering to how can I know the current extent of XML Schema on
>the Web. Because I saw a paper by Mignet et al (2003), that say:
>"conceptual schemas on the XML Web is not yet widespread: only 48% of
>the documents reference DTDs while the number of documents that
>reference XML Schema specifications is insignificant (0.09% of all
>documents)."
>  
>
remember there are other schema languages, as well as ways to achieve 
validation; RelaxNG, schematron, xslt, etc...can u upload link to that 
paper? you dont *need* schemas to get useful work done, though it helps.

>So, is it still right, and how I can know the current extent of XML
>Schema on the Web?
>  
>
in the circles I traverse, W3C XML Schema is suffering from poor adoption.

Personally I think that  XML Schema is more applicable to enterprise 
domain type usage and doesnt scale 'down' well to simpler problem 
domains....the truth is that most people want something simpler and get 
a little frustrated on reading the specs.....I have yet to find a clear 
tutorial on XML Schema that can teach a mid level developer to be useful 
in XML Schema (any links would be appreciated).

I could make an analogy with the WS* stack, which I also think more 
applies to enterprise scenarios though the reasons for poor adoption for 
XML Schema  are varied and no doubt different.

I only take XML Schema out if its box when I am in enterprise 
development situations...in the past few years I have adopted Namespace 
Resolution Language (NRL) to abstract the whole process, which I have 
found to be *very* useful when dealing in situations where there are 
many 3rd parties involved in development, all of whom have their own 
approach to validation.

As an aside, NRL takes the sting out of managing multiple schema 
validation approaches, and with its usage over the past year or so I can 
see that there is great benefit to having multiple schema technologies.

--Jim Fuller

• References:
  • XML Schema is not yet widespread??
    • From: Adi Eio <adieio@g...>

• Prev by Date: UDEF was Re: Fun With Schemas]
• Next by Date: RE: Aggregated content, fact checking, PICS, Atom/RSS (was Rigged Aggregators)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schema is not yet widespread??
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schema is not yet widespread??
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread