Re: A Call for Dialogue on XML Schema Part 1 and 2

["Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>]

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.

Kind Regards,

Clark