Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented Descriptions for XML
- From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:23:27 -0700
- Cc: "xml-dev" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B5D9@HQ5>
Other lessons are that XML and related specs must evolve and that the best
players don't always get picked and as Knute Rockne said "Prayer always
works better best when you have big players" (paraphrase).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: 'Michael Fitzgerald'; 'xml-dev'
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Announce: XML Schema, The W3C's Object-Oriented
> Descriptions for XML
> 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.