[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Aaron,
I suggest taking a look at the list of fallacious arguments[0] especially Argument By Authority[1]. Saying that some "experts" have endorsed a technology is not a way to argue its technical merits. At least one of the working groups that has chosen to base work on W3C XML Schema has now created a language with a type system that is in conflict with itself[2].
[0] http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
[1] http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#expert
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/#Issue-0104
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Skonnard [mailto:aarons@develop.com]
Sent: Mon 6/10/2002 8:15 AM
To: 'Simon St.Laurent'
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
> ><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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
