OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] ASN.1 is an XML Schema Language (Fix those lists!)andBinar

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>Alessandro Triglia wrote:
>>> Will XML Schema cease to be a true "XML schema language" as soon as (and 
>>> if) the W3C standardizes a schema-dependent alternative binary 
>>> representation for XML (assuming they do so)?  Certainly not.
>> Would you care to expose why you are so certain?
> Would you say that the nature of XML Schema would change if a W3C BiM-alike
> were introduced, to the point that XML Schema could no longer be
> appropriately called an "XML schema language" and would need a name change?

I don't know if it'd need a name change, but yes it would change its 
nature, at least slightly, and shift the balance of the XML world (also 
at least slightly).

> Would XML Schema lose its ability to describe and constrain XML documents?

Obviously not.

> Something would change, I agree.  One of the things that would change is the
> way some people would look at the language (in some cases, schemas would be
> used to always generate binary encodings rather than XML).  Some people
> would begin to consider XML Schema "syntax-agnostic" at that point.  Others
> would not.

Precisely. And that is *very* different from the way in which (many) 
people see a schema today.

> Again, one could argue that this is the present, not just a possible future.

It's been technically feasible (and done) for quite a few years now, but 
the curve isn't at the point at which I'd say it's the present. Not 
quite just yet, though it ain't so far.

> The BiM and other schema-based binary representations can be regarded -
> using ASN.1 terminology - as "encodings of abstract data types defined in
> XML Schema", XML 1.0 being another possible encoding.  This concept may seem
> strange to people used to think in terms of "syntax", but makes a lot of
> sense to other people.

Well I must say that despite some extensive work in the area, it still 
sounds at least a bit strange to me, especially the "XML 1.1 being 
another possible encoding" part ;) There's a chasm to bridge here, and 
bridging it should yield some interesting results I'd think.

Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Scientist, Expway      http://expway.com/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS