[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Can XML Schemas Support Document Systems
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:05:36 -0500
The problem with this line of thinking is that XML
has succeeded in removing means which
one group was uncomfortable with and replacing it
with means others are uncomfortable with. I find
examples where an author says "I want to
work without DTDs, of course" then immediately
begins to explain "generate-id" as begging the
question of functionality. As an SGMLer, it
is strange to see that simple means
one could quickly teach to a document manager or designer
replaced with whole subsystems that
require intense or shall we say, "extreme" skills.
Spilt milk. We need XML Schemas and need them now.
The time for this debate was last year.
So far, what I see in these arguments suggests that
we can apply XML Schemas to document centric systems.
Most of the counter examples seem to be extreme
examples of the kind that don't often occur or for
which there is a workaround. No show stoppers.
The gain of common means is worth the loss of
fringe capabilities particularly if the fringe
can be narrowed in future versions. The question
becomes one of controlling the process to ensure
the working features don't change for the sake
of competing notions and the fringe features
are identified for true applicability so they
do evolve sensibly.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:email@example.com]
The fact I have no SGML background and have taken for granted that I
could work without DTD is probably a reason why I those constrains do
not look "natural" for me.