[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I have read James' message critically (I assume you, Len, are referring to
[1]). I have examined his assertions. If anyone finds some error in fact or
logic in his arguments, these are open forums and anyone can challenge those
assertions. I have found his assertions to be justified and on target.
I agree with James assertions because I have examined the differences
between XML Schema and RELAX NG carefully. I do not think of myself as an
expert on these issues, but I have done my homework, and do not accept any
such assertions blindly. I have no financial stake in RELAX NG whatsoever. I
stand by it as an avid supporter because of the strength of its ideas and
the proof that those ideas work as demonstrated by its implementations. [2]
Let's hear a similar critical challenge against RELAX NG or any other schema
language for that matter. Anyone? Please speak up. I would like to see all
facts brought to light. I repeat, FACTS. I am, as many of you are, bone
weary of toothless politics on these matters. Please by all means feel free
to challenge any of RELAX NG's perceived omissions openly and vigorously.
Mike
[1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/#resources
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> As Clark's message is being passed along working
> groups like a grassfire, the assertions that XML Schema is
> hard, incomplete, inadequate, somehow not right, are being
> accepted uncritically in many venues based on the source.
>
> That is not a good thing. The letter will be used by any
> group with an alternative to beat on what they perceive as
> their strongest competitor regardless of the relative
> strengths of their own offerings. If all one has is
> perceived signal strength to choose a station, the
> media becomes the message and that is superstition.
|
