[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2
- From: "Clark C. Evans" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Don Park <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:07:29 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Don Park wrote:
> XML Schema spec has been in Candidate Recommendation status
> since October. Since inner workings of the XML Schema WG is
> closely guarded, we can only assume that both parts of the
> spec will soon become Proposed Recommendation, and then
> finalized not long after.
> Question I must put to you is: are we happy with it?
I'll stick my head out.
First, the data types (part 2) should have been
formally seperated a long time ago. In general, more
W3C specifications should be modulized; xsl:script
is another clear example of unnecessary technology
"tying" which I strongly dis-approve.
Second, other specifications should not be directly
dependent upon W3C schemas. In particular, a pluggable
interface should be provided so that any dependencies
can be indirect, allowing schematron, relax, trex,
etc. to fill appropriate roles if the user so chooses.
> While W3C holds the right to make any recommendations, it is
> heavily affected by its own momentum and the economic intents
> of its corporate members, resulting in limited ability to
> admit mistakes or control the direction of its activities once
> the spec is in site of the finishing line.
The famous postscript attributed to many great individuals,
"I am sorry that this letter is so long, as I did
not have the time to make it shorter."
applies here as well. The W3C is good at adding more and
more specifications, I'd like to see the charter re-written
so that refactoring takes a higher priority. Less is more.
> I hate to see excellent proposals like RELAX, TREX, and
> Schematron ignored for business reasons.
Eventually, ignoring excellent proposals will be
a business reason, but not one of success.