Lists Home |
Date Index |
I agree (having been named but not copied). But I was not
challenging his assertions. I do offer this: XML Schema
is out there, is apparently working for what it was designed
for, and for all the warts, is now in commercial products.
It is a viable option if a difficult one to comprehend at
first. I did not find it hard to apply once I had a decent
tool, but I don't accept that to mean it doesn't have warts.
What are the lessons learned, other than, don't accept
this stuff blindly and don't think standards means "there
can be only one"?
From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I have read James' message critically (I assume you, Len, are referring to
). 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. 
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.