[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The point may be the registry. The idea is noble and
a workable way to reuse definitions at a global scale.
It was tried in CALS too many moons ago. The main
problem is yet again political: getting organizations
and individuals to buy into the registry, who owns it,
how the submission and update processes work, and so
precisely the same problem as having a consortium
that creates standards and specifications. The reason
one usually finds tools for enterprises is that this
is the scale where that concept typically works best,
and sometimes in some organizations, it doesn't.
It's tough to tell designers that XML only really
cares about well-formedness and then get them
to buy into a system based on validity. It's like
giving them free popsicles without sticks.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
prb@fivesight.com (Paul Brown) writes:
>I definitely agree with Joseph's vision of being able to assemble a
>schema from a registry of atoms.
Isn't this the core notion at the heart of RELAX NG? Composability?
(And de-composability, if that's that right word.)
|
