[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Andrew S. Townley wrote:
> I think if the XSD group would recommend what you're proposing, it would
>
>go a long way to saying that everything doesn't have to fit in the one
>box. Separation of concerns is a proven software design principle after
>all.
>
>
Oh, we lost the one-size-cannot-fit-all debate before XML Schemas
started. Of course,
we get the dolorous satisfaction of being proved right afterwards.
That issue is dead now. Instead of seeing XSD as a missed opportunity
for layering
and incrementalism, we need to see XSD like SGML 1986-1996: a large
playground
being used anarchically by many different individuals, which ended up
showing which
features could be removed or refactored to other layers to give a more
useful playground.
And which proved again that underlayered standards are completely
implementable:
if you don't mind lateness, bugs, partial implementations,
self-defeating shortcuts, and
user resistance.
On Schematorn, the XSD WG are mostly the right age to recall Monty Python's
Mr Creosote sketch (the enormous fat man who explodes with "just a
little wafer"
more), as well as the knights who say NIH.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
