RE: [xml-dev] R: [xml-dev] Number of active public XML schemas

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

[Jumping in at a random point in the thread]

In the US federal space, the following site has just been made publicaly available for the registration of XML schemas and other XML artifacts:

https://xml.core.gov/

This is part of a site called Core.gov, which is run by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). I am not certain of the rules/policies for registration and discovery (as I am personally not directly involved with the project), but I understand it requires a login. I wanted to offer it up as an example of a place where one could see schemas registered in the future.

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chizzolini Stefano [mailto:chist@csb.it] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:36 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] R: [xml-dev] Number of active public XML schemas
> 
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da:	Ronald Bourret [SMTP:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
> > Inviato:	martedì 2 novembre 2004 7.06
> > A:	'xml-dev'
> > Oggetto:	Re: [xml-dev] Number of active public XML schemas
> > 
> > Michael Kay wrote:
> > 
> 	>>Or because they [DTDs] are easier to understand, 
> 	>> 
> 	>> I have yet to see a DTD of more than trivial size 
> that is not totally
> 	>> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash 
> enough to make a one line
> 	>> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter 
> entities and conditional
> 	>> sections.
> 
> 	>From personal experience, I'd have to say that complex 
> DTDs are 
> 	>slightly more penetrable than XSDs. As a user, I'm 
> usually just trying 
> 	>to find out one or two things and I can do this by 
> chasing entities
> 
> 	>through the DTD with a text editor. I give up 
> completely when faced with 
> 	>a complex XSD document. (And in neither case can I get 
> an overall
> picture.)
> 
> 	>Which raises an interesting question: Should there be 
> a non-XML syntax 
> 	>for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been 
> an article of
> 
> 	>faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if 
> for no other
> 
> 	>reason than not having to write another parser. But 
> one does have to 
> 	>wonder...
> 
> I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML:
> seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a 
> "self-describing" language syntax avoids the users from 
> learning a new one and allows to leverage many existing 
> applications derived from the original spec (in this case, 
> XML spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically 
> generate brand new schemas through XSL transformations.
> 
> Stefano
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
>