[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 09:56 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, John F Schlesinger wrote:
>Another way of looking at the problem is not to imagine that a human
>will ever have much need to look at the schema in XML. The XML schema is
>a serialization of the output of the design process that is used to make
>different parts of the application (or applications) agree on the type
>of the message. The design process is more likely to use a UML editor or
>some other part of an IDE to create the types than directly entering an
>XML schema (in RELAX NG, XDR, DTD, XSD or anything else). If this is
>true, then the question is not, as James Clark puts it, which is most
>intuitive for a human, but which is most intuitive for a computer. Well,
>I asked my computer and got the answer that it prefers XML Schema.
I don't have any problem with people doing this kind of work in
computing. It's necessary, useful, etc.
I just wish that once projects have gone this far away from any need for
humans in their process, they'd drop XML and go someplace else that's more
effective for those use cases (ASN.1 is certainly a candidate), rather than
encouraging the broad use of tools which are a horrible fit to anything
involving humans.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
