[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>, Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:25:40 -0500
Marketing plays a role, but this is not an
effort launched by conspirators on fools.
The distribution of the working software
from Microsoft, Oracle, Xerces (thanks
Steve), the best practices papers, the
generalizable examples, the industry
vertical and ad hoc vocabularies, all
of these will gain the acceptance of
XML Schema or not. Rick is right as
usual that there will be alternatives.
It doesn't change XML Schema. It becomes
another axe in the gig bag that we know
how to play.
People kicked DTDs in the head for two
decades. They have never died. People
lauded various open document standards
for most of that period which were ostensibly
techically superior and now hydrogen can't
float them. Other languages like VRML,
touted widely as dead, going nowhere,
cling tenaciously to the niche and
will not be extinguished, in fact, have
spawned competitive children (X3D, XMT,
RM3D) that will interoperate.
Give XML Schema a year. If the market
adopts it, there is no cause to complain.
If the market doesn't, there is no need.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:32 AM
To: Rick Jelliffe
Subject: Re: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.
Yes, I *fully* agree that work is more important than debate, let us get
the work done before we start debating as to what should be the standard.
But I think at least some members of this list are sceptical about why XML
Schema is in a proposed recommendation -- when everyone kind of agrees
that we still do not know sufficiently -- I wonder how many people
actually know about RELAX/TREX outside this group. I think I have
experienced in prominent XML research circles, people know nothing about
RELAX and TREX, and are not interested in any study on these approaches.
The question I think is what effect does XML Schema have on other efforts
-- I think almost everyone of us like to see XML schema's marketing not
subduing other efforts - I believe this is the greatest concern for most
people. Also, I believe everyone appreciates the work done by all the
concerned parties -- there are no winners or losers -- the goal is to move
towards the best solution, and every approach, correct or wrong, is a
forward step and adds to our knowledge and experience. Users will
ultimately adopt the solution which gives the most value to them -- but in
this case, are the users actually provided with this choice is the
I am not sure, but I think this probably cannot happen unless W3C honestly
announces something close to the effect that it is studying the approaches
by both the parties. Let us generate sufficient interest in the people to
study both the approaches, and let us finally make a decision. There could
be people like me who totally believe in the solution from RELAX/TREX,
there could be people who adopt the solution from XML Schema, but i think
this should be studied by sufficient people for some more time.
There might not be unanimity, but i think almost everyone is very
reasonable. But do we believe that the opposition to XML schema is merely
the unanimity problem a difficult specification faces?
I am not sure whether I am answering Rick's question straight -- but which
is a monolith -- RELAX or XML Schema? How many people have actually read
the entire XML Schema specification -- I am sorry but I think I find
sufficient number of typos to distinterest me even in the Primer draft.
<warning>speaking for himself only</warning>
cheers - murali.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> From: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
> >There should be good reasons why two very
> >prolific mathematicians and XML practitioners such as James Clark and
> >Makoto Murata have decided not to adopt fully the solution proposed by
> Yes. But why should anyone expect there to be unanimity? Surely the big
> thing that we can learn from XML Schemas is that the expectation that we
> have a single language--no matter how big or small, elegant or rich,
> feathered or porpoise-like--that is suitable for everyone is a fantasy.
> Which is why questions of whether we prefer ambiguous to unambigous
> grammars, or the Islamic calendar to the Gregorian calendar, should be
> with _after_ we have built a suitable framework for modular but
> schemas. With a modular framework, the stakes are lower, we are not
> to make decisions on issues which have no single obvious winnner.
> Without modularity we are forced into an unpleasant world of winners and
> losers, depending on whether our application's needs are consonant with
> ones weighed highly by the particular schema language developers.
> Merely saying "XML Schemas bad! RELAX good!" keeps the cart before the
> horse. If there is no modularity or ability to plug-n-play with different
> kinds of schema, then every little engineering trade-off has to be
> to exhaustive discussion (as in XML Schemas) with no guarantee that the
> result will satisfy everyone.
> It is good to have a nice powerful, branded language that can support test
> suites and be reasoned about enough to allow efficient storage and
> But does that require a monolith?
> Rick Jelliffe
> P.S. Just before RELAX and TREX, there was the excellent DSD  too. It
> has many useful ideas.
>  http://www.liss.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/xml-dev-Dec-1999/0687.html
>  http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=135
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: email@example.com