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] Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: [xml-dev] XMLSchema Qu

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Policy makers don't always understand the technical implications of the
policies they are developing.

I don't think that Betty was implying that the Federal XML Developer's
Guide is meant as policy; however, I would like to respectfully offer a
clarification on the background of the Federal XML Developer's Guide, so
that there is no misunderstanding regarding its source. 

I was the editor for the most recent version (2.0, published April
2002). The Federal XML Developer's Guide was created from the Department
of the Navy XML Developer's Guide, which was developed by folks that are
highly technically skilled (they are not policy-makers). The Federal XML
Developer's Guide was created by removing the Department of the Navy
references, and incorporating some adjustments due to feedback from
various folks (the adjustments had to do with other choices of
preferences, not errors in the Department of the Navy XML Developer's

I would also like to emphasize that the Federal XML Developer's Guide is
guidance, and not government policy.

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

Betty Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > At 9:27 AM -0500 11/25/03, Betty Harvey wrote:
> >
> >
> > >   SGML Problems
> > >
> > >. High initial investment
> > >. Complexity
> > >. Too many options/features
> > >. Vendors supported a subset of features
> > >. Applications weren't portable because of various feature sets
> > >. Lack of intuitive end-user software
> > >     Fear of "pointy brackets" (<>)
> >
> > If you ask the question of XML, and not XML schema, then we're doing
> > much better. The only ones that you could even argue haven't been met
> > are "Too many options/features" and "Lack of intuitive end-user
> > software", but you could also argue the other way on those points. I
> > do think basic XML 1.0 has too many options, but I don't find the
> > problem crippling. And end-user software may have taken a little
> > while to get here but now it's popping up all over the place, even in
> > Microsoft Office.
> If DTD's are what we work with, I would agree that we have made it easier.
> However, I believe that DTDs may be on their deathbed and are now
> considered deprecated or legacy.  The reality is that most organizations
> are using schema's for all "new" projects.  The U.S. Government recommends
> the use of W3C Schemas
> <quote source="Federal XML Developer's Guide">
>    Only ISO 8879 Document Type Definitions and W3C Schema Part
>    1:Structures and W3C Schema Part 2:Datatypes SHALL be used to define
>    XML document structures. Developers of data-oriented schemas in DTD
>    syntax SHOULD migrate to XML Schemas. Developers MAY elect to use DTDs
>    for markup of data that is strictly document-oriented (sentence,
>    paragraph, chapter, appendix, etc.). However, the XML Schema language
>    is the preferred method.
> </quote>
> Policy makers don't always understand the technical implications of the
> policies they are developing.  This thread peaked my interest because I
> was provided a schema that validated with two parsers, failed validation
> with 3 parsers.  Passed parsing with another application but the
> application 'blew up' when trying to validate or parse a document of the
> schema.  I was also moving between MS Windows and Linux, as well as using
> XSV at the W3C site. All parsers that fail give me a different error
> message.
> Different parsers also handle namespaces differently also. Some see it as
> 'text' which is the way the namespace spec says it should, while other
> parsers go looking for the URI in the namespace and if it doesn't find it
> fails.
> My initial question is still unanswered - which W3C schema can I trust to
> validate a schema (I will take 95%)?  Right now I don't have confidence in
> any of the schema parsers.  I want a parser that provides me the same
> amount of confidence that I have in James Clark NSGMLS.
> Betty
> --
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Betty Harvey                         | Phone: 410-787-9200 FAX: 9830
> Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |
> harvey@eccnet.com                    | Washington,DC XML Users Grp
> URL:  http://www.eccnet.com          | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano


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

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