[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > > 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...
<snip/>
> >
> >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?
I'm saying it's not a niche. However, it looks like I misread the
original post, which says it IS irrelevant to a 'large niche'. I'd agree
that XML Schema may be irrelevant to a 'niche' (whether big or small is
debatable) of developers but those developers aren't building Web
services.
> ><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.
Neither. :-)
All I'm suggesting is that those working groups could have chosen not to
build on XML Schema if they really believed it was severely flawed and
there were better alternatives. I'm not saying that the W3C process nor
XML Schema are perfect, but it makes sense for the Web services
community to focus on XML Schema if we care about interoperable services
any time soon.
-aaron
|
