Lists Home |
Date Index |
I would like to join the discussion again.
I have talked to developers and what I have heard was
that their is at least one thing, where XML Schemas/ta are
better than Relax NG - when you do deserialization/serialization
of objects into SOAP messages.
The only words I can hear during the discussion are "developers",
"implementations", "implement" ... ?
But what about the users, who want to create just
documents, data files, which will be never represented
as Java/C#/C++ or whatever objects?
Haven't you forgotten us?
Users, for whom the DTD is not sufficient (multiple namespaces,
datatypes) and XML Schema is _so_ complex to learn!
Users, who DO not have time to dive in the XML Schema specification
for months and think in the terms of
because they have other work to do besides that.
I have read the Relax NG specification carefully, gone
through the examples and now I can write a schema in
a moment. It's so easy and yet powerful!
And for the documents it's BETTER!
Let the XML Schema live in the space of SOAP/WSDL/..,
but give us a choice!
If not, expect far more stupid questions, than mine.
Is XML Schema a technology for average XML users, or just
for an elite?
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> I apologise if this came off as arrogant or impolite.
> I accessed the URL from work by clicking a link on the public XML Schema comments page which also provides the same link that I provided. However, I was at work where my machine is configured to allow me access to W3C member-only lists transparently and didn't realize that although the link was provided on a public page it led to a members-only page.
> I assure you, that from now on I'll make sure to test my links by trying them from home before posting them to XML-DEV.
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfiur-type
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Jacobi [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Mon 3/25/2002 12:53 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
> It is arrogant and inpolite to say may "more info at" citing
> a password protected page.
> > As I mentioned previously, the seemingly contradictory dual nature of the
> > ur-type is a known issue in the spec which has been addressed.
> > More info at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Jan/0065.html
<name firstName="Jirka" surname="Jirat"/>
<mail> email@example.com </mail>
<support> http://www.zvon.org </support>