[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 22:56, Danny Ayers wrote:
> The contrast is made between the 'byzantine' WXS and the 'more appropriate'
> RELAX NG. More appropriate for whom? Like the perceived enemy here, if we
> don't like a WXS then we can go off and create a RELAX NG. No need to tilt
> at windmills.
That's perfectly fine with me as long as WXS isn't presented as a
component of a "XML Core" box on which everything else will be built
including future releases of XSLT, XPath and even the Semantic Web.
This is the windmill against which I am trying to fight since the
presentation of Tim Berners-Lee in Hong Kong last year which clearly
shown this frightening picture:
http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1197
I am quite happy to see a raising attention on this issue which is IMO
fundamental: good or not, IMO schema languages do not belong to XML Core
and it's as bad to package a schema language (any of them) in the box
named "XML Core" as packaging any programming language in this box
(Java, C#, Python or whatever).
Creating a dependency between XML and programing or design technologies
will kill the goose that lay the golden eggs and XML wouldn't be XML any
longer without its interoperability!
Eric
--
See you in San Diego.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
