[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread 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
complexTypes/simpleTypes/restrictions/extensions,
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?
Jirka
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[0] 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.
>
> [0] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pfiur-type
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Jacobi [mailto:pj@walter-graphtek.com]
> Sent: Mon 3/25/2002 12:53 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
>
>
>
> Dare,
>
> 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> jiratj@systinet.com </mail>
<support> http://www.zvon.org </support>
<zvonMailingList> http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=4
</zvonMailingList>
|
