[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> But the following technologies have been created to only utilize one of them
> (XML Schemas):
Well, it kinda makes sense that W3C working groups would favor a W3C
schema language. One of the things each WG does is make sure it has
reaction and feedback from others in the w3c. I don't think there's
anything sinister about it, just limited time and resources.
> a. XSLT
> b. XPath
You must be talking about the 2.0 versions, right? Since the current
standard XSLT and XPath are schema-ignorant.
> c. XQuery
Do any of those other schemas have a type system? I thought the only
place XQuery cared about schema was datatypes.
> d. SOAP
I don't see this at all. Yes, SOAP 1.1 had SOAP RPC, which involved a
twisted use of Schema; at the time it was written there was only XSD, and
even then it was a draft. In SOAP 1.2, the RPC encoding is completely
removed from the core, and not even specified. SOAP 1.2 is based on the
Infoset, explicfitly *not* the XSD post-schema validation Infoset. So how
is SOAP tied to XSD?
> e. WSDL
WSDL 1 was pretty tied to XSD. WSDL 2 tries very *very* hard to be
schema-neutral. It doesn't seem consistent to complain about the 2.0
versions for a,b,c but ignore 2.0 for e. :) (For what it's worth, I think
WSDL 2 went the wrong way in doing this, as I wrote about for xml.com)
> The W3C seems to be sending a clear message, "if you're not XML Schemas then
> you're not invited to the party". /Roger
I think that's both petty and unfair.
/r$
--
Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
|
