[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Jonathan Robie
>
> Simon St.Laurent
> I'm not really sure why you see this as such a problem.
>
> Do a Google search on WXS. It won't get you to the XML Schema
> specification.
I didn't know xml-dev had a silly season.
Let's be honest here. People, myself included, are using the TLA WXS for
political reasons, ie it lets us say 'WXS [Ss]chema' instead of 'W3C XML
[Ss]chema' or 'XML [Ss]chema'. We would like the world to treat the
various XML schema languages as political if not technical equals for
the time being. If this is a problem or uncool, then the thing to do is
to ask the working group in question or the W3C to state what the things
names are and if it has an acronym, what it is that acronym? How
difficult do we have to make this?
Please note that the XML name is owned by someone, I think it's MIT. If
they think it's valuable enough to own, perhaps others think it's
valuable enough to be associated with as an official or official
sounding schema/query/binding/linking/messaging/whatever language for
XML. On the other hand if W3C XML Schema is an official schema language
for XML and officially of the W3C, and the authorities in question let
us know they really don't like it being called WXS or something they
haven't called it themselves, let's just treat it as a land grab, drop
WXS and move on.
The other less political thing is I, unlike Henry, really can't be
bothered typing 'W3C XML Schema' into an editor over and over, and if we
can have a TLA for W3C XML Schema, that would be handy. But of course,
terseness is of minimal importance.
regards,
Bill de hÓra
|
