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

Re: XML spec and XSD

• From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
• To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@sun.com>
• Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:34:35 +0530

Hi Tim,

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@sun.com> wrote:
> I thought Rick was being fair.  XSD is a failure by any sane technical
> measure.

I agree, that XSD spec has been quite mammoth and functionally
complex. That's the only aspect, I see XSD being different from most
of other W3C specs.

From functional point of view, I don't think XSD doesn't work. So many
numerous XML applications currently used XSD.

I don't think, there is anything wrong with the basic core/philosophy
of XSD. I guess, some of users who don't like XSD generally, it's
probably because of it's huge size, and steep learning curve.
I believe, XSD also get's functionally better with the upcoming 1.1 release.

> There's no reason not to acknowledge this and hopefully learn from
> it in future standardization efforts.

Pls see my previous remarks :)

> If we don't learn from our failures
> we're condemned to repeat them.

I agree. That's true for any endeavors we get engaged in :)


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>

• References:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
  • RE: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Michael Sokolov" <sokolov@ifactory.com>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@Sun.COM>