Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Michael Champion" <email@example.com>,"XML Developers List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:56:04 -0700
- Thread-index: AcWikMBn7tNkQFmYTPuSb6twMOqp7AAAr/Sw
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
My perspective as former PM for XML Schema technologies at MSFT
- No requirement for implementations of features to exist before going
- Contradictary design goals (datatyping vs. validation)
- Spec written in obtuse language that only an anti-social academic
The lack of existence of a formalism was not really a factor as far as I
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
They say that 74% of the Earth is covered by water and the rest is
covered by mortgages.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:30 AM
> To: XML Developers List
> Subject: [xml-dev] Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re:
> [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
> On 8/16/05, Michael Kay <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > No. We need XML Schema so that other WGs know what not to do.
> > OK, so what exactly did they do wrong, and how can other WGs avoid
> > doing the same?
> That seems like a useful question to ask, especially since
> W3C seems to be trying hard to learn from what XSD and some
> WGs did wrong.
> My strawman list would start with:
> - Trying to do too much at once with a single spec. There's
> some famous quote along the lines of "all successful complex
> applications were once successful simple applications" that
> we should all probably ponder daily. I wish I could find it
> ... it probably came from Sean
> - Not having a rigorous testing process in place BEFORE
> Recommendation (the W3C "Candidate Recommendation" phase and
> other process changes address this)
> - Not appreciating that the formalism has to come first (as
> RELAX NG was built on the hedge automata formalism) to be of
> real benefit.
> (XQuery at least tried do this in parallel, with some success)
> There's also the uber-problem that all WGs have, which is
> that the consensus process makes it much easier to add stuff
> than remove stuff.
> I don't know how to address that, but as I recall the Schema WG
> *explicitly* made it hard to remove features once they had
> been agreed to.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>