[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
Rick,
> Even if XML Schemas were layered properly and more explicable,
> we still would be having a certain
> amount of interoperability issues just attributable to immaturity.
> The same issue
> affects RELAX NG, Schematron, ATMs, and any software: any "I told you
> so" feeling from those of us who complained about the size of XML
> Schemas
> (or its goals) early and often should be tempered by that. The real
> test will
> come in a couple of years time: if there are still interop problems by
> the time
> XML Schemas software should be mature, I think it would clearly show
> that the technology is intrinsically flawed, at least as far as
> layering goes,
> and in need of a thorough revision or refactoring. Until then, trying
> to get
> a Databinder's Profile (Common XML Schemas?) is probably more rational.
I think there already is an implicit databinder's profile out there, in
the
form of whatever nugget of schema is widely implemented consistently by
vendors. Trouble is that it isn't clear to the average publisher of
a schema which bits are core and which are esoteric.
I'm, personally, fairly open to a profile, but maybe improved test cases
or clarifications of the spec itself could be sufficient. I don't know.
However in my day job i'm getting fairly frustrated as more or less
each and every new schema i'm faced with seems to lead to yet another
learning experience followed my having to deliver bad news to customers
/i'm afraid your schema is being rejected by toolkit *bah*, maybe you
might
like to simplify it if you want to reach a wide market?/
So I'd take the opportunity to plug the W3C Workshop on Schema User
Experiences
to be held June 21-22nd in Redwood Shores, CA, which will hopefully
explore
these and other issues aimed at helping our beloved schema and its users
reach a happy state of maturity:
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-cfp
Paul
--
http://blog.whatfettle.com
|
