Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:09 PM
> To: 'email@example.com'; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] relax ng public list?
> RNC certainly. A GUI user doesn't need a simplified syntax.
> Or do they? One still has to edit in the text window with
> most GUI-driven XML tools, but how and where the schema is
> designed is also important.
> For example, getting the schema directly from the tables
> doesn't leave much for the schema hacker to do? Or does it?
> Why does a table designer need a schema edit window at all?
> I mean 'Microsoft distribution' first, then others in order
> of market share.
Interesting, do you really believe that RELAX NG can't reach critical
mass without Microsoft's explicit support. That is indeed a sad state of
affairs if this is what the XML world has come to.
> Again, I speculate that what some majority of the GUI-enabled
> schema systems are doing with the schema could be done by
> most or all of the current schema languages. Given that, why
> shouldn't VS enable one to select the schema language? Is it
> an issue of 'the W3C sanctioned this one and we are good
> members', or 'this came first and we had sweat equity in it,
> and you only need one', or 'sounds good, maybe later'?
Perhaps it is because given that Microsoft ships myriad products that
support a particular XML schema technology from Office to Biztalk to the
.NET Framework (DataSet, XmlSerializer, XmlValidatingReader, XML Web
Services, etc) to SQLXML to VS.NET (and so on) it doesn't make much
sense for one of these products to support a different XML schema
technology from the others. Given that we are still having problems
digesting our commitment to W3C XML Schema without randomizing ourselves
and our customers by throwing in more variation.
> A shot in the dark: RELAX NG is not perceived as an
> interesting technology in the domain where many desktop and
> services vendors are focused at the moment: web services.
> Would that perception be wrong?
As I've mentioned earlier, there are at least two classes of users of
XML schema technologies [which also covers the usage scenarios around
web services], people who want to move around type annotated infosets
[which are most likely originally objects or relational data] and those
that want validation of business documents. The current practitioners of
XML web services I've seen typically are more concerned about the former
and not the latter case. Unfortunately RELAX NG is not designed for this
case while W3C XML Schema is.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Flashlight batteries never die in the daylight hours.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no