[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----Original Message-----
>There's a fundamental naming problem with XSD - it's called "XML
Schema",
>it's published by the W3C, and it's frequently described as a core part
of
>"XML".
>If the W3C renames it "Type-based Description for XML Serializations"
and
>lets it lurk on the margins of their spec, then maybe there's some hope
for
>your suggestion.
>In the meantime, I don't think there's much cause for those of us who
find
>W3C XML Schema sorely lacking (especially for data, which it claims to
do
>well) to be so charitable.
Exactly, this is a problem I run into frequently as I attempt to argue
against using XSDL for, well, anything really. It seems we're obligated
to work with Xml Schema and what's worse, not say bad things about Xml
Schema, in order to satisfy customers who think W3C is like the 'good
markup seal of approval'. If you try to argue against using XSDL then
the customer will get wary of giving you work because you must not be
that technically competent if you can't handle something as fundamental
as XML Schema.
Of course I make no great claims to technical competence myself and am
always surprised when I know something someone else doesn't, but IMHO
(which as the foregoing was meant to demonstrate really is an HO in this
instance) not using Xml Schema should not be taken as a sign of
technical incompetence - perhaps rather it should indicate the opposite?
|
