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

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 09:21 AM 10/25/00 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>"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.

It's an interesting point, though the W3C has done exactly this in other
XML specs - XML Linking, XML Pointers, XML Path, XML-Signature, just to
name the ones I can think of offhand.

Given that we had to change the name of XSchema to DDML as part of the
submissions process (to avoid confusion, if I remember right), I suspect
they feel somewhat proprietary about the XML name.

Schemas is the only field I've seen where their 'XML'-named spec is facing
real (and sustained) competition, so it's kind of a tricky precedent.  I
can see where they might not have expected (or desired) competition, so
they did it like the others.  As circumstances have developed, there are a
lot more options than the W3C's creation.  But since people tend to start
looking for XML specs at the W3C, they may never even hear of the
competition...

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books