Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 05:09 PM 6/4/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>For this case, I'm not sure I see as much reason to argue with this. W3C
>XML Schema is already used by the W3C for its XML protocol work and
>standardization not balkanization should be the order of the day. Most
>of the arguments about the complexity of W3C XML Schema for the average
>end user don't apply to Internet protocols. After all, how many regular
>users look at SOAP messages or HTTP requests?
I'm not sure how many people read those messages directly, but I'd
certainly be unhappy if <bar /> got past the validator when I was expecting
<foo /> as in Clark's point 7.
Are there people who have experienced both approaches who would prefer to
standardize on W3C XML Schema rather than standardize on RELAX NG?
"Everybody's doing it" does not qualify as technical
justification. Standardization is dangerous enough. Standardization on a
complex spec with well-known anomalies seems, well, fool-hardy.
(I used to think XML 1.0 was a complex spec with anomalies and spent a lot
of time pointing them out. Then the scale of XML's sins was put to shame
by those of W3C XML Schema. I don't think mere pointing is adequate.)
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue