Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bill la Forge" <email@example.com>
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <"Len Bullard"@mail.HiWAAY.net>, "Paul Grosso" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 21:29:22 -0500
From: Len Bullard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Isn't that about what x-schemas were per the open list (ask Simon) that
> started working on them before they became a W3C work project?
I believe Simon has said that the failure there was a lack of working code.
And there was no lack of working code for SAX.
I don't think bifurcation of XML Schema is a risk. I'm more concerned
with complete fragmentation. Not within the existing XML community as
we know it, but the very success of XML is going to change the nature
of that community.
If we don't find a way to make schema writting more accessable, that then
creates a tremendous business oppertunity for someone who is willing to do
so. (What? Never mind. They just don't make these crystal balls the way
they used to. :-)
Anyway, I strongly believe that as XML grows, we will be dealing with a
larger and larger audience. And the W3C specs aren't going to make life
easy. Perhaps, in the long run, much of that work will be (largely) ignored.
I don't see an answer. But I can't see having to explain anything much more
complicated than DTDs. OK, Extensibility does have a part of the answer
with their Authority product.
I'm not saying that its hopeless, just that we need to deal with usability or
pay the consequences.