Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
- From: "Aaron Skonnard" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:31:50 -0600
- Importance: Normal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
> > Wow, talk about taking out of context. You managed to turn an over
> > two thousand word email in support of the IETF's endorsement of
> > W3C XML Schema into an indictment of it.
> I am not indicting XML Schemas, nor saying that posting indicts it. I
> repeatedly said I think XML Schemas should be good for particular
> am on friendly relations with several members of the Schemas WG, which
> participated on, and I wish it well and I respect them. My company has
> products that use it.
Exactly. Remember that Don's original comments on XML Schema were
addressed specifically towards Web Services, a task where we clearly
need a rich type system to achieve interoperability between toolkits and
other applications that cross programming language specific type
> What I am saying, and I have yet to meet any users in the industrial
> publishing industry who disagrees, is that XML Schemas is deficient to
> point of irrelevence for a large niche, and that the answer is not to
> bloat it but to build a schema language on a modular framework. I am
> against XML Schemas to the extent that I am for plurality and
> other words, I am only opposed to XML Schemas to the extent that it is
> pushed as a universal schema language that cannot tolerate
I wouldn't call the WS community a large niche.
> > Saying XSD 2.0 will
> > add features not in XSD 1.0 does not translate into XSD is not here
> > to stay in any way, shape or form.
> The way things normally work, one would expect the version 1.1 of
> something to be either backwards or forwards compatible, but the
> 2.0 to be a reformulation, and certainly not necessarily compatible in
> syntax or components.
> I don't believe that the XML Schema WG would be willing to make
> any undertaking that XML 2.0, if it is ever made, will be a superset
> of XML 1.n in its syntax, its components, its semantics, or even its
> To the extent that that is the case, to say "XSD is here to stay" is
> a statement of branding and power rather than anything concerning
> technical merits or compatability.
The fact that the W3C has assumed XML Schema in layered specs like XPath
2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XML Query (the original argument) says a lot about
the technical merits considering the W3C process.