[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:15 PM 6/24/2002 +0700, James Clark wrote:
>I agree that the emphasis on named typing in W3C XML Schema is a profound
>difference from RNG. One interesting question is whether it would be
>possible to build a schema language that supports named typing yet still has
>(at least most of) the simplicity and power of RNG. However, I still have
>my doubts that named typing is appropriate for XML. I would speculate that
>named typing is part of what makes use of DCOM and CORBA lead to the kind of
>relatively tight coupling that is exactly what I thought we were all trying
>to avoid by moving to XML.
Precisely. I have a hard time figuring out why people who want named
typing find XML exciting at all - it seems like a horribly inefficient
approach for such things, with its own inconveniently incompatible
markup-based notions of structures and labels.
Note that I still believe that XML is extremely useful for data. I simply
believe that the approaches and expectations surrounding that data have to
adapt to XML rather than forcing themselves into XML.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
