RE: Request for a poll: (was RE: Datatypes vs anarchy)

[Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>]

I think most of the complaints on this list have been that it tried to do
too much. And yet you also find people posting links to white papers that
talk about mapping UML models and relational database schemas into XML
Schema, so there are clearly people out there that are leveraging that
greater complexity. Also, it's fair to ask why it tries to do too much. I
did not participate in the schema WG, so I can't really speak to that, but I
suspect that complexity stems from the fact that many of the participants
pushed for features they wanted to see in the spec (so they could do things
like map UML models and relational database schemas into XML Schema without
a great loss in fidelity of the model in the process).

I suspect there are many who do not agree that XML Schema does too much. But
they aren't the ones complaining about XML Schema, so we aren't hearing too
much from them.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:51 PM
> To: Michael Brennan
> Cc: xml-dev
> Subject: Re: Request for a poll: (was RE: Datatypes vs anarchy)
> 
> 
> Michael Brennan wrote:
> > XML Schema presents, I think, an important
> > lesson for us to learn. There was too much expectation on 
> the part of too
> > many people for a grand unified schema language that would support
> > everyone's use case.
> 
> Interesting. Could be I'm looking at the world through 
> Ron-colored eyes,
> but most of the complaints I have heard were that it did too much and
> that people wanted to avoid the kitchen sink syndrome. Maybe it was
> different at ground zero...
> 
> -- 
> Ronald Bourret
> Programming, Writing, and Training
> XML, Databases, and Schemas
> http://www.rpbourret.com
>