[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 19:17 +0000, Fraser Goffin wrote:
> Uche,
>
> thanks. Actually I didn't mean I was concerned about the maturity of Python,
> I meant the maturity of my team in terms of their ability to support new (at
> least to them) technologies and the risk that this has (or may be perceived
> to have) for operational support.
>
> As a person who has obviously committed time and effort to schemaTron, can
> you say, in your experience, what you think it current usage is like and
> whether you believe that this is likely to grow or be replaced by something
> else ?
>
> I am slightly concerned about the apparent lack of activity both in terms of
> the ISO ratification and the various schemaTron sites/newsgroup/etc... but
> this may just be an uninformed view.
>
> It appears that there is some sensitive issue that might be delaying this at
> present that Ken Holman hinted at. It is perhaps not tactful to pry into
> specifics but hopefully there will be some sort of progress in the near
> term.
>
> If you hear anything I would be grateful if you would publish to this list.
I like Ken cannot get into any specifics, I'm sorry, but I personally
think that Schematron has a very long window and the current slowdown
will probably not lead to its death of replacement. The main reasons
are that it is complementary to other schema technologies and will
always live in the interstices of the tools that have added Schematron
assertion capability (many WXS and RNG tools have). Schematron 1.5 is
mostly fine for such purposes. The added benefits of ISO Schematron,
abstract patterns, for example, are grounded in needs that honestly, I
think the XML world is just beginning to mature enough to appreciate. I
think that ISO Schematron was originally a bit ahead of its time, and in
these Web 2.0/microformats days the iron is just getting hot for it to
strike. I think that if there is some progress in the next few months
(and I have reason to be fairly confident it will) there will not have
been much loss.
Of course, I'm just looking at the crystal ball here, which is cloudy
for all of us, and I might be wrong. The nice thing about Schematron, I
think is that is solves problems with clever application of existing
technology, without inventing too much, and so I don't think it's too
expensive of a bet to make for you as a user, or me as an implementor
(Scimitar was fairly easy to write).
Sorry if that's all still too vague. I hope you do stick with
Schematron, somehow.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
|
