[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
First, thanks for replying, Dare.
>> 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.
I read the available numbers. One should toss IBM into that mix
too, and then Oracle. It can be done without MS, but it takes a lot
longer and more evangelism. I do understand a position that requires
a clear value add before adopting a technology.
>> 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.
There is also a timing element in that. XDR was a W3C candidate,
and then W3C Schema. MS is still supporting both. Again, a clear
value add proposition is needed, but as Gates said, if one doesn't
acknowledge demand elasticity, Moore's Law puts one out of business.
Demand fuels development where volume counts.
Getting RELAX NG into .NET by Microsoft's hand will require a value
proposition that is timely. Meanwhile, the .NET framework is extensible
by others and RELAX support can be added if it hasn't already. The
goal of the RELAX users should be to get as much content in that
form out there as possible.
"Hit hard; hit fast; hit often." - Adm Wm Halsey.
>> 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.
Interesting point. Let's see what the RNG advocates say. I do remember
some discussion about RNG not being reliant on the XML Schema types (has
a plug model). That would suggest it can be used. What am I missing?
len
|
