Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Rick Jelliffe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Joshua Allen" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
- From: "Manos Batsis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:16:33 +0300
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- Thread-index: AcISqG6Cwi9gPISOR1eavvaIZPkMwgAAEBsQ
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> From: "Joshua Allen" <email@example.com>
> > "If everyone develops their own data, schemas and
> definitions, we have a
> > Tower of Babel and we haven't gotten what we wanted."
I cannot agree with that, that is, if I understand you correctly. A
number of applications processing the same kind of XML may require
different detail of validation or different kind of validation
altogether. As long as the schema languages used are standard, I see no
reason for concern. I do not consider a schema *document* to be a
language. The schema language on the other hand is to be considered a
language (per your Tower of Babel) but having a number of
different(schema) languages is a good thing; much the same way having
music and written speech available as mediums for expression is.
> So if a computer makes up a schema automatically to fit some
> data (e.g. .NET)
> that is good, but if a person does it, it is bad?
Nope. He is probably writing a schema according to his requirements,
which is more one can say about automatically generated schemas.