[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks Uche. I agree with your assessment and fully intend to stick it out,
at least for the immediate term (project/delivery managers are not always
reknown for their patience or foresight :-). As you say, the fact that
schemaTron by and large leverages existing technology rather than inventing
something new (obviously there is a domain specific XML voculbulary - but
this is small) is a strong point in its favour, especially in times of IT
rationalisation and outsourcing.
I look forward with more optimism, so thanks for that, we all need a bit of
encouragement from time to time.
Fraser.
>From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
>To: Fraser Goffin <goffinf@hotmail.com>
>CC: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] ISO schemaTron
>Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:56:32 -0700
>
>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/
>
|
