xml-dev - RE: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?

[Matthew Fuchs <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>]

Standardizing such a thing makes me extremely nervous at this point.  The
value of a standard is only that it is standard - xsdl hasn't even been
finalized and we're already talking about bifurcating it.  Not that I'm
surprised - at the very beginning of the schema effort I compared our task
to C++, which ended up with three languages - K&R C (viz. DTDs), C++ (viz.
xsdl) and ANSI C (viz. xsdl--, perhaps DTDs plus datatypes).  But at least
C++ was up and running _before_ the ANSI C effort was underway.

It is certainly possible, within your own schema, to turn off most of the
DTD++ features and end up with the ANSI C analog.  But please do that with
an xsdl parser, rather than trying to immediately standardize some
intermediate language.  

And try working with the language as is.  You might be surprised.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill la Forge [mailto:b.laforge@jxml.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 5:59 PM
> To: Edd Dumbill; Roger L. Costello; Dave Hollander
> Cc: xml-dev@xml.org; www-xml-schema-comments@w3c.org; 
> Schneider,John C.;
> Cokus,Michael S.; Ripley,Michael W.
> Subject: Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
> 
> 
> From: Dave Hollander <dmh@commerce.net>
> > PS. Regarding "heavy" schemas: I do not see why someone could not
> > use a sub-set of XML Schemas to achieve a easy to learn and use
> > schema language. If anyone has ideas on this application profile,
> > let me know.
> 
> Such a sub-set could have tremendous utility, both for 
> simplified implementations
> and as a means of learning the larger schema.
> 
> I think it should be possible, though I have no idea of the 
> effort required, to
> define a standard subset roughly equivalent to DTDs. But I 
> suspect such a
> standard would have great value.
> 
> Bill la Forge
>