[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> The W3C has posted the minutes for the workshop a couple of weeks ago,
> which have links to the presentations
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-xsd-user-minutes.html and
> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/22-xsd-user-minutes.html
> The experience reports submitted in advance are at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/25-schema/all.zip
Some interesting quotes from the pre-submitted documents:
ACORD: "...we have random implementations and understandings of the
specification and it is usually up to the unwary user at the most
inopportune moment to find out that a feature is not supported. "
BEA: "we believe that the complexity of Schema is, in many scenarios,
unnecessary, and often actively harmful. More than anything, this is the
feedback we hear from our customers and end users. We are also concerned
that Schema’s complexity may be the root cause of so many incomplete
and/or incorrect implementations."
BT: "In our experience, XML Schema is implemented inconsistently in vendor
tools, especially those which used schemas to generate mappings into code
and other forms of data." "Working around interoperability issues with
vendor supplied tools is difficult and sometimes impossible when using XML
Schemas published by third-parties, standards organisations and
consortia."
HL7: "HL7's experiences with designing schemas that work across a broad
array of tools has been extremely disheartening."
IBM: "Anecdotal feedback from the Web services community has suggested
that inconsistent support for certain valid XML Schema constructs across
the various development tool environments has contributed significantly to
the interoperability challenges faced by Web services developers."
Microsoft: "Rick Jelliffe [RJ05] describes the situation faced by an
actual customer where incomplete support for XSD in various products has
“stuffed up the ready interoperability they thought they were buying into
with XML.” That sums up the problem nicely and mirrors the experience of
many of our users."
OAGi: "Complex type derivation by restriction simply does not work."
Rogue Wave: "Many customer issues come from schemas that are not valid. In
almost all cases this is the result of a schema generated by a tool."
SAP: "In a heterogeneous environment, usability, implementation and
language binding issues impact the choice of features that are supported.
This led SAP to have different levels of support for XML Schema features
due to the impedance mismatch between the language constructs and XML
Schema constructs or the frequency of use of certain XML Schema
constructs." "SAP favors this direction (a profiling mechanism) as a
catalog of profiles and their constraints could then be published and used
as basis for interoperability when designing a certain class of language
bindings and applications as well as business vocabularies. Further, it
would help reduce interoperability issues for hard to implement and
understand features of XML Schema."
Sun: "When people run these broken schemas against our schema compiler, we
reject it as an error, which only make them think that ours is broken.
This trouble-shooting can get quite complicated if it involves in a type
hierarchy, substitution groups, and/or wildcards."
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
