[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SchemaTA (was: Newbie)
- From: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:24:39 +0100
> From: Rick Jelliffe [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 7:26 PM
>W3C XML Schemas is what the recommendation is called, so it is like a
>name and we are stuck with it.
>But there is nothing to stop anyone using "W3C XML Schemas schemata"
I think it is just "XML Schema". So your proposed usage might be "We
have written several XML Schema schemata for our order entry system. We
originally intended to create Relax NG schemata, but we required support
for relational constraints."
Ya gotta love XML-DEV! Anywhere else this would be a spelling flame-war,
but here it takes on a much more cultured, highbrow tone. :-)
My own pet naming peeve is the use of "extensible" in acronyms, where I
believe "XML" should be used. For example, "eXtensible Stylesheet
Language". XSL isn't really all that "extensible", the "X" really refers
to "XML". The other example is XHTML. In most of the other standards,
the "X" stands for "XML", although I can't find what the "X" in "XForms"