Lists Home |
Date Index |
On 25 May 2005, at 02:56, Michael Champion wrote:
> I would like to encourage xml-dev participants to consider attending
> this workshop or at least submitting an experience report paper if you
> can't attend in person. People complain about XSD on xml-dev all the
> time. Here's your chance to tell W3C and its member companies what
> you think, why you think it, and how you think the issues can be
Thanks Michael! I'm quietly optimistic for the Workshop, not least
because good people like yourself, and others from Microsoft, are
going to contribute to the debate.
I think it's fair to say this is different from the usual W3C Workshop
in that it's examining the use of and expectations from a well
established Recommendation. In many ways this is a post implementation
review of Schema 1.0 which comes ahead of the XML Schema WG publishing
the next round of Schema 1.1 documents.
Looking at the registrations and reports we've received so far, we're
going to have many of the right people in the room. If you do have a
tale to tell part in then this is undoubtedly the forum to air it.
The PC are willing to accept Experience Reports even if you are unable
to attend, which are highly likely to be read and discussed.
And if you have played a key part in the XML Schema story and don't
turn up, then expect your ears to be burning 21-22nd June :-)
> Wearing my Day Job hat, it's really hard to assess whether the
> majority of end users are struggling with XSD or not. We all know
> that it has lots of ugly beasties hiding in the corners, but do they
> bite the average citizen? We all know that there are interoperability
> issues, but are those real XSD interop issues, implementation issues,
> or XSD -> Java -> SQL -> .NET interop issues? We know that there are
> alternatives to XSD, but do they have any success stories outside of
> XML geekdom? Most importantly, what can be done to move the XML world
> forward -- fix it, toss it, grit our teeth and implement it, or what?
I'm in the process of putting together a tail of woe using
implementations in particular those from Web services land.
Like many, we've a significant investment in XML Schema, services,
processes and tools which depend upon it. Much of the value of XML
Schema is that so many people do depend upon it and are in the
same 'boat', so making it work is in the best interests of many.
On the other hand, there is always a lot to learn examining the
alternatives, and I'm personally open to hearing people compare
and contrast experiences of using XML Schema with Relax, RDF,
Schematron, CAM, UBL, et al. Better understanding what is
useful, what is missing and what is superfluous in an XML
description language will get us all to a better place.
Paul (speaking for myself)