[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And it would make even more sense for people to just use RELAX NG or Schematron instead of encouraging the W3C to foist another overengineered, misdesigned and impractical technology on us. This belief that the only XML technologies that count are those that come from the W3C is the biggest bane of XML today.
________________________________
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com]
Sent: Sat 2/15/2003 1:24 PM
To: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] Re: How to redesign W3C XML Schema (Was: Remembering the original XML vision)
. Three would be more
awkward, but I think it *would* make sense for the W3C to specify a third
schema language: a simple, well designed language that used the same types
as W3C XML Schema.
But I would only support it if it had a prayer of being implemented and
used. Remember that XML was a marketing coup as much as a technical coup -
if we wanted to establish another schema language, we would have to find
markets that desperately need it, and for whom existing solutions are
painful enough to make them willing to change, and to abandon already
accepted standards. Building a market like that takes time and energy.
Jonathan
The reason we have standards bodies is to define interoperable
specifications. I can't think of what it would mean to have XML governed by
any schema
[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200007/msg00154.html
[2] http://www.ibiblio.org/xql/tally.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-1-20001024/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
