[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML Schema 1.1
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tim Bray <email@example.com>,"Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:09:49 -0500
On the other other hand, XDR and DTD
kudzu can be a little expensive to yank out
of contracts. My question is, how
big do the warts have to be to keep
implementations of XML Schema off
the street? Surely the working bits
work well enough to use them even
if the spec is being held up for
wart removal. I understand the
cost of cosmetics, but it is showtime.
I'd like to see two years of using
1.0 before anyone seriously considers 1.1.
Date/time? The minimum will be acceptable.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
In the closing days of getting XML 1.0 out the door, a lot of
*reasonable* requests for enhancements were, in good software
engineering style, kiboshed as being "for 1.1". Once 1.0 got
out the door, everyone developed a strong case of (healthy IMHO)
paranoia about screwing with the thing, and personally I'd be
astounded to see anyone take on XML 1.1 in my lifetime; the
cost is very high and the need doesn't seem that great. So it's
legit to suspect that to push things into 1.1 is to kill them.
Particularly when you look how long & hard those poor folk on the
Schema WG have been at it. On the other hand, Schema is probably
a little bit less dangerous to change that XML would have been.