[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 09:33 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>Yup, we've been here before. I probably have a list of issues with W3C XML
>Schema that's as long as my arm but griping about some primitive types
>that nobody uses simply because they represent clutter or an unclean
>aesthetic model ranks low on my list.
>
>I've read Amelia's article and I consider it a tip of the iceberg. I've
>mentioned to Edd that I'll probably write a follow up sometime in future
>which clarifies why I consider complaints such as gHorribleKludge rants as
>minor issues.
I've been thinking about this, and suspect that we have different
perspectives on the nature of the problems. I'll wager that your list of
issues includes both Part 1 and Part 2. Given that I've entirely written
off Part 1, Part 2 is the remainder that I frequently have to deal
with. (I work with W3C XML Schema only when I'm forced to do so, and then
only on a read-only basis - I use Trang to avoid having to do any modeling
in WXS.)
gHorribleKludge may seem a minor issue in the context of the entire
catastrophe, but from the perspective of someone who has already discarded
Part 1, it's the start of an argument for discarding Part 2. I think it's
fair to say that a lot of people have already given up on Part 1 and better
replacements are available, so my remaining question is what we can do to
remove and replace Part 2.
(This does, of course, mean abandoning most specifications built on top of
W3C XML Schema, which is unfortunate, but perhaps we can hope their
creators will modularize them well enough to make their specs usable
without a trace of WXS or its expectations anyhere. I don't see that
happening at present, unfortunately, so there may well be an enormous fork
in the road here.)
It's (past) time for me to get back to work on some concrete proposals for
alternatives.
|
