OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: more grist

At 09:28 AM 3/6/2001 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > The way I read Simon's article (and the position I defend), it's not a
> > criticism of W3C XML Schema, but the fact that other applications will
> > become dependent on W3C XML Schema.
>In so far as they do, it's because they have requirements that can
>best be satisfied that way.  The alternative (e.g. for XML Query and
>XML Protocols) would be to define their own, incompatible with XML
>Schema or each other, type system.  Surely _that_ would be a step

I'm afraid that's a matter of perspective at best.  Those who set the 
requirements may see this as a gain for their particular projects, but they 
seem blissfully unaware of the cost this imposes on other developers - both 
creators and users of XML tools.

It isn't just a matter of "you don't have to use this feature if you don't 
want to" - it's a matter of creating a deeply intertwingled infrastructure 
with features that create genuine confusion, chaos, and implementation 
difficulty.  The "layering" proposed in these specs looks just plain broken 
to me, for reasons we've gone over repeatedly in the last few weeks.

Then there's the matter of driving the deeply unpopular (in many quarters) 
W3C XML Schema specification into every other W3C specification.  At a time 
when XML Schema is facing (widely welcome) competition from other 
specifications, integrating it with other W3C specifications feels like a 
major risk, if not an outright political move to push XML Schema across the 

Interesting times.

Simon St.Laurent
Associate Editor
O'Reilly and Associates