[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:47, Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> > 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.
You _could_ make that argument, and I know that there are lots of people
saying exactly that to scare people into using W3C XML Schema without
exploring the competition.
At this point, however, I don't believe that WXS has put down nearly the
roots that either XML 1.0 or Namespaces in XML have. IMHO, there's
still a lot of time yet to run before the schema issues are genuinely
settled.
Namespaces have a two-year+ head start on schemas, and their complexity
isn't nearly as apparent on the surface.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
