[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Concur. That is the right approach. James
goes a bit over the top, but he is not wrong
in that XML Schema is daunting for some and
overkill for others. However, I didn't find
it hard to use for a relational system as you
point out (big backend; money is irrelevant,
though). Tools are a big help. I don't see
XML Schema as a favorite for the PFE/Notepad
users.
It is far easier to get confused when trying
to figure out the combinations that allow
namespace processing when XSLT and Schemas
are both being used. Having parsers that
trip or are inconsistent using keywords to
invoke behaviors is very disturbing. So
many work from coded examples (cut and
paste mentality) and keeping up is hard.
So the bigger question here is just how
convoluted the XML frameworks are going
to be and how that affects each class
of user. XML Schema in and of itself
is not harmful; XML systems may be.
len
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@allette.com.au]
It would make more sense for the RFC to merely say something like
this
"Standard schema languages (E.g. ISO RELAX NG or W3C XML Schemas)
should be used in preference to proprietary or non-standard languages.
Schema languages should be used conservatively: exotic or difficult or
badly-described features may be badly implemented or used incorrectly
or be difficult to diagnose."
|
