[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: typing (was RE: Personal reply)
- From: Jeff Rafter <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:51:53 -0800
I started a long reply to the question of whether W3C XML Schemas are a good
spec., but saved everyone the long read.
> The only problem I see being addressed here is that some people don't like
> XML Schema and would rather see it replaced with their own favorite schema
> dialect, or nothing at all.
Following Part 1 to implement structures that represent the Schema
Components is a piece of cake (albeit verbose and well-defined). I did it
in about seven hours. Will these structures be optimal? I don't know yet
but they are a great start. I am no Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, etc. and yet am
doing it-- how is it possible? The spec. isn't that difficult. People need
to buckle down and work.
I wonder how many people complaining about XML Schemas are actually
implementers? And of that group of people how many have implemented other
schema languages that purport to be of unequaled simplicity? Can it be
better? Of course. That's why it is W3C XML Schemas Version 1.0. Anyone
out there remember HTML 1.0?
There are many people who disagree. The scary thing is, I find myself
starting to side with them because I respect them so much-- and might agree
on that principle if I hadn't gone through the steps myself. I just wanted
to be the one who says it is possible, and in fact, it is a good spec from
where I stand.