[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 4/14/05, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> My experience over the last six months to a year has been more
> positive -- I'm seeing more large industry schemas, and they _are_
> conformant, and I'm seeing fewer "Processor X and Processor Y
> disagree" messages (with one exception, see below), and most of those
> are on what everyone involved agree are corner cases.
Maybe I have a biased perspective because I only hear about the
problems and not the great mass of conforming schemas! Anyway, we're
planning to present our experience and evidence at the Schema
Experience conference so that people can judge for themselves.
>
> So my feeling is that the corner has been turned on interop
I generally agree, except that more and more tools are forced to add
"buggy tool compatibility modes" to make this happen with minimal
customer pain. Those reduce the presssure to actually conform, and
create de facto profiles that we'll collectively be stuck supporting
for years to come.
> There is one big, embarrassing, counter-example, in the form of a
> low-cost, widely-used tool which does not do very well at enforcing
> conformance. ...Gresham's law is
> always a problem :-(.
Indeed!
|
