[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 18:03, Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
> I think the acid tests for features of RELAX NG have been soundness and
> fitness, which also includes implementability. In my opinion, I think there
> is little danger of RELAX NG getting ahead of itself, and I don't see this
> as a frailty.
Great!
> To me, RELAX NG takes sort of a Winston Churchill approach
> rather than a Neville Chamberlain approach, that is, dogged determination to
> do the right thing, even against great odds, instead of hurried attempts at
> "peace for our time" or appeasement. (I do not use Mr. Chamberlain as an
> allusion to XML Schema but to the practice of "marketing at all costs,"
> whatever the setting.)
Marketing is indeed the second area where alignment is dangerous and two
schema languages focussed on their respective domains would be much
easier to position and, IMO, better for the XML community. If the
domains were distinct enough it could even be possible for these
languages to work together...
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
