[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> * Thomas B. Passin
> |
> | You also do not have a hope of getting the WXS schema right without
> | a tool to help, [...]
>
> Just a little note: the XML Schema specification calls the language
> defined in that specification "XML Schema definition language". It
> seems to me that it makes more sense to call the language XSDL.
> (The Charles Goldfarb series of books already do.)
We call it WXS to make it clear that this is just the W3C's proposed XML schema language. I used to call it XSDL as well, but I was convinced that this makes it sound too much as if it's the only schema language out there.
I guess this is perhaps a tad unfar: we say "XSLT" without a flinch. I expect this has to do with relative attitudes towards XSLT and WXS.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think11.html
|
