Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: SchemaExpe
 "...newer versions of XML Schema should endeavour to remain backwards compatible with XML Schema 1.0." I take "endeavour to" to be droll understatement. Bob Foster http://xmlbuddy.com/ Paul Downey wrote: > > On 12 Jul 2005, at 06:05, Michael Champion wrote: > >> Sure, jAXB has their mapping, other Java vendors have their mapping, >> Indigo has their mapping ... getting them to interop is the problem >> AFAIK.I don't know how much of this is everyone wanting to standardize >> on what they do, and and how much of it is real conceptual >> differences between the platforms. There are a lot of smart people >> working on this and I don't get a sense that the problems are just NIH >> / "can't we all just get along by doing it MY way". Premature >> standardization got us into this mess, so I think that there is a lot >> of skepticism that ad hoc standardization will get us out. > > > > The Chairs' report, published last night, attempts to summarise the > discussion at the workshop around this very topic, see 'Profiles': > > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-schema-workshop/chairs-report.html > > I personally think standardisation of 'object mapping', even within > a set of today's best of breed technologies such as Java/C#/Python is > a little dangerous given XML is about exchanging documents, or at least > interoperating with those who want to work with XML directly. What > goes on behind the XML curtain is very much a per-implementation concern. > > Having said that, I believe there is real value in knowing which aspects > of schema are most likely to give 'a good user experience' when using > today's data binding tools. I tried to explain in BT's experience report > how such an 'implicit profile' already exists - in particular what works > well > with .NET code generation - that's who most people seem to test against. > Unfortunately it's left as an exercise to each publisher to ascertain > what actually works well through a process of trial and error. > > I've also heard many people asking how to express common data structures > such as collections, arrays, indexed tables, etc to 'round-trip' to and > from XML on the same platform or so they /might/ surface in similar form in > another programming model. I think that's a related, though subtlety > different > requirement to a 'profile' in that it is much more wide-ranging than > 'objects' > and is currently being discussed as a possible topic of a WSDL WG note. > > -- > http://blog.whatfettle.com 
|
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
|
|||||||||
