Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Grosso <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:37:33 -0600
At 13:42 2000 02 10 -0700, Dave Hollander wrote:
>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.
I agree schemas are way to "heavy", but you are way too late
in the process of XML Schema to do anything about that. It's
not the "use" that's a problem, it's the support (i.e., the tools
that people have to develop), and a tool can't implement a subset
and claim to be compliant.
If you did actually try to define a subset that both tools and
users would agree on, then you would kill interoperability outside
of that subset, and you might as well just toss the existing standard
and call the subset the standard.
It would have been nice if Schema 1.0 had been something minimal
based on "DTD capabilities in XML instance syntax plus some basic
data types". Then not only would it have been available long
ago, but vendors and users could benefit from the experience, and
Schema 2.0 could be developed in light of that experience. Now,
all we've got are "heavy schemas" and existing uses of SOX and
XDR and such. That's what's causing the marketing problem.