[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML spec and XSD
Hi Ken, I think, the subject of this thread was different, than what this debate is turning out to be. My point was not to say, which Schema technology is better. I was only trying to point to this one point in XML spec: "An XML document is valid if it's valid according to a DTD", and my proposed changes to XML specs clearing up this confusion. Tim Bray wrote earlier in this thread: Mention of DTD into XML 1.0 spec, was historic accident. I think, Tim was quite modest to support my view point. But I think, he recognizes some truth with this textual flaw in the spec, in the current scenario. Liam Quin wrote: An architectural breakup of XML specs can also be a viable option. I think, Jim Tivy also supported my view points. Even I saw some support from Mike Kay, but not entirely. I think, rest of people in this thread spoke against this idea. I've just tabled my ideas in this thread, and I am sure if it makes sense something could be done about this issue, else this idea is bound to be discarded :) On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote: > I cited it only as an example. Â Forgive me if my comments came across as > otherwise. > >> I think, even a correct implementation of >> say, xs:redefine on one or two processors is good enough. > > But are there two implementations that are the same, and if they are the > same, are they the "correct implementation" you cite? Â I believe this is the > root of the issue: Â it isn't that vendors have implemented the specification > incorrectly, it is that the specification is unclear enough that each vendor > believes they have implemented it correctly yet end up with different > results. Â There are no "bugs" that can be identified and repaired in each > vendor's incompatible work because there is no agreement on the > interpretation of the specification as written. > > The validation semantics for W3C schema are written in prose. > > The validation semantics for RELAX-NG are written in formal unambiguous > notation, guiding all implementers to a formally correct implementation if > they properly implement the documented semantics. Â Of course they can > implement bugs, but because of the formalisms, the bugs can be identified as > such without debate. > >> Sometimes, >> vendors create differences in implementations to differentiate (I am >> not really sure though, if that's true. At least the base standard >> should be implementable). > > And that is my very point: Â yes, it should be written so as to be > implementable by all without ambiguity. Â Practice has revealed this is not > the case for W3C Schema. > >> I am not trying to be getting into a mud sludge game between computer >> languages, or to express sarcasm to any XML validation language. I >> appreciate, efforts of anybody taking pains to design anything like >> these languages, and implement them. > > Indeed. Â And please forgive me if my comments come across as sarcasm of W3C > schema, as I have been trying very hard to be objective so as to illustrate > the concerns with concrete examples. Â It is not my intention to obfuscate > the issues with mud, but to clarify the issues by citing identifiable > sources of concerns with the technology. Â Those in this debate who have not > supported W3C schema have been speaking up in the interests of all XML users > who may have, themselves, been misguided regarding the technology > (intentionally or unintentionally). > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|