[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[seeking clarification]
At 08:30 AM 6/10/2002 -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote:
>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
>systems.
That makes sense.
> > 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
>the
> > 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
>only
> > against XML Schemas to the extent that I am for plurality and
>richness; in
> > other words, I am only opposed to XML Schemas to the extent that it is
> > pushed as a universal schema language that cannot tolerate
>alternatives.
>
>I wouldn't call the WS community a large niche.
Are you saying WS is a small niche, or that it's not a niche?
><snip/>
>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.
Is that a complement to W3C XML Schema by way of a complemement to the W3C,
or is that a slur to both, or neither? I can read that one an enormous
number of different ways.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
