[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:30 AM
>
> If you look at an XML strictly as a set of rules for creating local
> vocabularies, then sure: just do what you like, and don't worry about
> anyone else.
I never said that this was meant to be something custom or to be used within
a limited domain. Frankly, this would require a group effort to implement
such a concept. Likely, each implementation would be specific to each
schema language, but I suppose it would be possible to come up with an
ubersyntax...
> If on the other hand, you look at XML as a framework for building
> diverse document structures and processing using a common set of tools,
> then the picture isn't so beautiful. Your documents may well outlive
> the tools you built for your own namespace flavor, leaving others to
> piece together what you really meant, and they may also escape the
> boundaries of your system.
Couldn't you make the same argument about schema languages? Yet, RNG,
Schematron, etc. are still being developed and used despite facing
opposition from W3C's XML Schemas. Creating competing standards never
starts off beautifully. However, in the end, the standards either learn to
work symbiotically or one loses out to the other.
> In general, I don't consider closed-system expectations worth thinking
> about, so I'm afraid it does matter to me what other people are doing.
> It makes change a lot more difficult, yes.
So the reality is that this is just too much of a paradigm shift for anyone
to really feel that it is worth taking on... ah well... back to the
drawing board.
---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@seairth.com
|
