OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Interesting pair of comments (was Re: [xml-dev] SchemaExpe

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

"...newer versions of XML Schema should endeavour to remain backwards 
compatible with XML Schema 1.0."

I take "endeavour to" to be droll understatement.

Bob Foster

Paul Downey wrote:
 > On 12 Jul 2005, at 06:05, Michael Champion wrote:
 >> Sure, jAXB has their mapping, other Java vendors have their mapping,
 >> Indigo has their mapping ... getting them to interop is the problem
 >> AFAIK.I don't know how much of this is everyone wanting to standardize
 >> on what they do, and  and how much of it is real conceptual
 >> differences between the platforms.  There are a lot of smart people
 >> working on this and I don't get a sense that the problems are just NIH
 >> / "can't we all just get along  by doing it MY way".  Premature
 >> standardization got us into this mess, so I think that there is a lot
 >> of skepticism that ad hoc standardization will get us out.
 > The Chairs' report, published last night, attempts to summarise the
 > discussion at the workshop around this very topic, see 'Profiles':
 > http://www.w3.org/2005/06/21-schema-workshop/chairs-report.html
 > I personally think standardisation of 'object mapping', even within
 > a set of today's best of breed technologies such as Java/C#/Python is
 > a little dangerous given XML is about exchanging documents, or at least
 > interoperating with those who want to work with XML directly. What
 > goes on behind the XML curtain is very much a per-implementation concern.
 > Having said that, I believe there is real value in knowing which aspects
 > of schema are most likely to give 'a good user experience' when using
 > today's data binding tools.  I tried to explain in BT's experience report
 > how such an 'implicit profile' already exists - in particular what works
 > well
 > with .NET code generation - that's who most people seem to test against.
 > Unfortunately it's left as an exercise to each publisher to ascertain
 > what actually works well through a process of trial and error.
 > I've also heard many people asking how to express common data structures
 > such  as collections, arrays, indexed tables, etc to 'round-trip' to and
 > from XML on the same platform or so they /might/ surface in similar 
form in
 > another programming model. I think that's a related, though subtlety
 > different
 > requirement to a 'profile' in that it is much more wide-ranging than
 > 'objects'
 > and is currently being discussed as a possible topic of a WSDL WG note.
 > --
 > http://blog.whatfettle.com


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS