[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 4 Jul 2002, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> 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.
And worse, when tools are built which will _only_ accept schemas to
validate their input files rather than having plug-in validation via some
standard API that can be used by RNG or XML Schema or
<fill-in-the-blank/>. [I'm talking about simple yes/no validation rather
than the fancy granular validation that XML Schema is said to provide.]
And even worse, when organizations like the U.S. Government say that "we
will use only XML Schema," irrespective of the technical merits thereof.
>
> 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
>
--
J. David Eisenberg http://catcode.com/
|
