[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friendlyproducts
- From: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Last mail for the day --
I think Michael Champion is more correct than Eric -- we *trust* the WGs
to come up with correct technology, as a not very experienced person, I
also tend to trust big corporations like IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, but i
think the experience with XML schema is making me doubt the big
corporations to some extent. I have the highest regard for tim berners
lee, who had made the web possible.
I am glad with the merger of RELAX and TREX, it makes the solution adopted
by RELAX/TREX stronger, it also focusses development on one specification,
also personally it gives me hope of correct research -- I am sure
RELAX/TREX will survive the marketing strategies from XML Schema, whatever
be their individial market shares.
cheers - murali.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Michael Champion wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:50 PM
> > To: xml-dev
> > Subject: Re: ZDNet Schema article, and hiding complexity within
> > user-friendlyproducts
> > Marketed as "XML Schema", it is already in most of the people mind
> > (except maybe on this list), THE schema language to use for XML, just
> > because it is proposed by the W3C, the same organization that has
> > published XML.
> Fair enough. Nevertheless, hardly anyone has actually USED the
> beast yet except for the kinds of people on this list. At the risk
> of violating the dreaded W3C Omerta oath ... looking at the official
> "votes" on Schema, I don't see a lot of evidence that most W3C members
> took a terribly close look at it and weighed the costs and benefits;
> they figure that the world needs a Schema spec, so they ASSUME that what
> the Working Group came up with is a Good Thing.