xml-dev - RE: XML Schemas: the wrong name

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

I expressed the same concern for HTML:  
the Hypertext Markup Language.  Before 
HTML, there were several markup application 
languages for hypertext, but that stuck. 
And so it goes.

The technique is colonization (aka, 
adaptive radiation).  Control of the argot 
controls the process.  Lazy adaptation by 
placing experimental results quickly into 
specifications is how some do business.  
It is one reason some are seeking alternative 
processes and alliances to replace the 
dependence any given consortium.  This sort 
of change in the policy making for sharing 
technology has occurred before.

Otherwise, don't worry too much. Right now, 
so few people know how to apply XML Schemas 
that it is possible for other technologies 
to take a larger piece of the niche.  IMO, 
XML Schemas are very useful all other agendas 
aside simply because it is very straightforward 
to use them on the client.  Trying to get a 
client to stay thin as the data entry and manipulation 
becomes complex is a challenge.  It seems to 
me that XML Schema with capabilities such as 
regular expressions is one part of the solution.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 7:21 AM
To: xml-dev@xml.org
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Subject: XML Schemas: the wrong name


I'd like to raise a concern about XML Schemas I haven't yet seen 
elsewhere. I think "XML Schema" is the wrong name for this 
technology. Here's why:

"Schema" is a generic word used in computer science. "XML" refers to 
a specific technology. There are many XML schema languages of which 
the W3C's "XML Schema" is but one. To identify the W3C's proposed 
schema language only as "XML Schema" is to strongly imply that there 
is only one schema language for XML; and that is simply not true.

I would prefer to see RELAX, Schematron, DTDs, and the various other 
proposals slug it out in the marketplace. I do not see a need for or 
want only one XML schema language, any more than I want only one 
programming language. Different languages are appropriate for 
different uses.

I do not know what the W3C's XML schema language should be called. 
XSchema is one name I've seen bantered around, and that seems OK as 
long as it expands to "AN XML Schema Language" rather than "THE XML 
Schema Language". But it should not be called simply "XML Schema". 
That's like calling Java "VM Programming Language" even though there 
are many other languages that can be used to program the Java virtual 
machine. There are other programming languages and there are other 
schema languages. No one language should have the right to identify 
itself solely by the generic name for a technology
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|                  The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999)                   |
|              http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/               |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/   |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/     |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+