Lists Home |
Date Index |
Len Bullard wrote:
> 2. Schemas, for all the noise, are still far and few between.
> Because of the emphasis on well-formedness, some number of those
> just adopting XML are working in the mode where an XML instance
> is handled and validated in code.
Agreed. This is the point that I was trying to make by bringing up UBL.
Substantial efforts to create business-oriented schema libraries with broad
coverage are gaining momentum, and now is the time to jump on the bandwagon
and influence them if there is general sentiment that the market orientation
vis-a-vis concrete schema syntaxes is not what it should be.
> As to the perception of the W3C as owning all XML specs and
> standards, many share some of the blame for that if there
> is blame to be shared. The savaging of ISO and SGML in
> the last decade came at a price. Now is when we pay it
> and maybe take home a life lesson for the price.
Don't buy it. The "savaging" of ISO and SGML was what resulted in XML in the
first place, and though stakeholders in SGML might not like it, the reality
is that this represents huge progress. The W3C scored a huge PR coup first
with HTML and then with XML. It is only natural that people would expect it
to be the source of the "official" XML schema language as well. And it is
undeniably true that the XML Schema WG brought together an impressive array
of talented and knowledgeable individuals. It is a direct consequence of the
huge influence of the W3C that XSD attracted so much attention, and as a
direct consequence of that XSD has the flaws that it does (and it is
probably fair to characterize this as almost universally linked to neglect
of the "80/20 rule").
I don't believe that coddling of ISO and SGML egos would have changed this
situation one whit. We all have to have the courage of our convictions and
defend our ideas not just on technical merit (and boy, could I go on for
hours about the issues that SGML has on this level) but also in terms of
market acceptance. If there's a life lesson to take home here, then I for
one missed it.