[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Schemas Article
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:40:58 -0500
Or maybe the SGMLers were right all along
except for requiring them in every case.
Well-formedness is a coding freedom not
necessarily extended to the user of the
coded message but even the SGMLers know
it isn't required to read the document
in every case.
Somewhere the contract for communicating for
the duration should be expressed. Lighter or
heavier makes no difference to the necessity
to trust AND verify except where trust is
proven to work and you can afford the occasional
Besides, XML Schema is just an
application of XML. People are free to
ignore it. They just aren't free to improve it.
Unless directed otherwise.
"It is good to be king." - Mel Brooks
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:30 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: Re: Schemas Article
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> Note: www.eweek.com May 28, 2001 has some
> articles on XML Schema. Mostly hype. It is
> weird to see almost exactly the same diagrams
> for XML Schema + XML as were created for
> DTDs + SGML over ten years ago.
Yes, they are right: this is the point.
Generalizing the usage of any schema language is like reintroducing
And it's not unlike going back toward SGML...
> Maybe it will work this time now that
> programmers labelled the diagrams instead
> of lawyers and technical writers. :-)
Maybe we need this pain to enjoy the freedom of a new lightweight flavor
of markup language without W3C XML Schema in one or two years time...