Lists Home |
Date Index |
>> I begin to be really worried about the "implementability" of W3C XML
>> Schema and I'd like to give an example of what I have already
>> experienced several times in the past months (I insist that this is an
>> example and almost the general case, *not* an exception).
> I have to agree. I keep coming across schemas that validate in one tool,
> not in another. Sometimes the schema is valid but wrongly described as
> The guys that write these tools are not stupid. If they haven't got it
> by now, I worry for the future of XML Schema.
I think a lot of the problem can be traced back to the goshawful W3C
recommendations - they are such a pain to wade through that I suspect a lot
of developers ignore them entirely and work from secondary sources such as
"commentaries," tutorials, and other people's products. I'm usually a
stickler for working from the best source but with XML I've fallen into the
trap of relying on tutorials instead of the W3C recommendations and doing so
has bitten me on the bum more than once.
Consider this, the actual requirements of W3C XML Schema are *far* less
complex than those defining most programming languages, most embedded
systems, many data formats, or almost any process-oriented product. Yet
there seems to be far less agreement than there should be about what those
requirements actually *are*. That is not unusual for a format under
development. However, when you have a product that has reached the status
of a recommendation and are *still* seeing frequent divergence between
implementations, the only reasonable conclusion is that the language of the
specification is at fault.
Even a precise specification remains essentially worthless if developers of
average intelligence and experience frequently fail to derive its intended
meaning. Likewise, a specification so "unfriendly" that significant numbers
of developers ignore it in favor of secondary sources can only be described
Senior Software Analyst
Engineering and Design, Courseware Support
FlightSafety International, Inc.