[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray wrote:
> > Maybe you are being purposely provocative (I can relate,
> lord knows), but
> > the idea that XML+schema is somehow no longer in the spirit
> of XML is
> > absurd.
>
> I think XML Schema is not remotely in the spirit of XML,
> where that spirit
> is reasonably well expressed by the 10 design goals appearing
> in section 1.1
> of the XML REC. Let's agree that SGML conformance is not a
> big issue,
> leaving
> 9 - I think XSD flies in the face of at least 5. -Tim
The W3C definitely scored a marketing coup in dubbing its schema language
"XML Schema", thereby making it nearly impossible to distinguish between its
effort and the notion of XML schemas in general.
I should have been clearer on this point. I believe fervently that XML
schemas (with a small "s") are at the very heart of the next generation of
XML, encompassing web services, the semantic web and all the other visions
that have excited our imagination. I believe equally fervently that W3C XML
Schema ignores exactly the aspects of the original XML effort that made it
so successful, as you point out. (Just take the idea that optional features
should be avoided, for example? What ever happened to that?)
As such, W3C XML Schema is actively hampering the development of the
next-generation web. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is a point that I feel
very strongly about. But this does not in any way, shape or form imply that
the very idea of XML schemas (again with a small "s") is somehow counter to
the original XML design goals. It all depends on their actual embodiment.
Matt
|
