[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If folks are looking for an XML schema that:
1. Is _much_ simpler than W3C XML Schema
2. Simpler than Relax NG or Schematron
3. Has an XML 1.0 syntax (as well as a ConciseXML syntax)
4. Supports both weakly-type semi-structured documents
as well as strongly-typed data.
5. Is an open specification
6. Ability to embed within XML documents
7. Uses a simple, yet flexible type system
I recommend folks look at Water Contract.
http://www.waterlang.org/water_book_2002/ch05.pdf
_Plusch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jochen Wiedmann" <joe@ispsoft.de>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:27 AM
Subject: [xml-dev] Re: How to redesign W3C XML Schema (Was:
Remembering the original XML vision)
> Quoting Jonathan Robie:
>
> > 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.
>
> I understand the issue. However, much that has been said in this
> thread about SGML reminds me very much about my current experiences
> with XML Schema.
>
> IMO a good specification is a small specification. For example, the
> old RFC's have typically been *very* small, compared to nowadays
> nightmares. Standards like SMTP have of course evolved in time,
> adding features over time. As David wrote:
>
> > I spent three months on and off trying to write an SGML parser in
> > Java and never made much progress; I had the first working draft
> > of AElfred done in an evening, and a quite usable parser in a
couple
> > of days (on top my regular work responsibilities at the time)
>
> I think the same can be said for the early versions of SMTP, POP3,
> HTTP, and all that stuff. (At least for the protocol, of course it
> is a different task to write an SMTP protocol handler than writing
> Sendmail or MS Exchange.)
>
> IMO this can be said partially for XML (at least not for the DTD
> related stuff), but not at all for XML Schema. I am currently
working
> since months on an implementation of JAXB (http://java.sun.com),
which
> is a fairly big specification in itself. But I can realistically
*never*
> expect to implement all the details of XML Schema, on which JAXB is
> sitting, not even at the parser level.
>
> I am not so keen on the idea of supporting , and
> all that stuff. But a simplification of XML Schema would make quite
> some sense, much in the way of DocBook with its spinoff DocBook
Lite.
|
