RE: Schemas Article

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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 
defection.

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

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:30 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
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
mandatory DTDs.

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...