Re: XML Schema becomes a W3C Recommendation

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 12:50 AM 5/3/01 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>The way it has been presented as the third component (with XML 1.0 and
>namespaces in XML) of the foundation of the whole XML world is, IMO, bad
>news though.
>
>I won't go in detail over all this as they have been covered in other
>threads, but just let me summarize why I think it's bad news:
>
>A foundation, especially when composed of three pillars, isn't usually
>something modular in which you can replace one of the components and I
>don't think this is good neither for a) W3C XML Schema itself nor for b)
>XML in general.
>
>a) This is putting a lot of pressure and responsibilities on top of W3C
>XML Schema that doesn't deserve it and would probably have had an easier
>job without this pressure.
>
>b) This is not good for XML as  b1) W3C XML Schema shouldn't be seen as
>a general purpose schema language and is a threat for the diversity of
>XML vocabularies and b2) schema languages are a kind of early binding
>that is not always something to wish.
>
>Anyway, kudos for the work done by the W3C XML Schema WG.

I'll skip the kudos for the work - I just plain find it frightening that 
this is the foundation on which the W3C plans to build further 
projects.  Point (a) is unfortunate, but (b) is a much deeper and tougher 
problem.

XML 1.0 wasn't all about jettisoning features, and it took off like a 
rocket.  XML Schemas seems to be all about piling on features, and I fear 
it will weigh that rocket down so badly that people forget XML 1.0 was 
exciting in the first place.


Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly & Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books