[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Jun 29, 2006, at 04:55, Michael Champion wrote:
> Jirka Kosek wrote:
>>> A
>>> lot of corner cases were found and software was adjusted to handle
>>> them.
>>
>> Weren't such corner cases caused by a lack of formal underpinning
>> and complexity of XSD spec?
> That may be, but I believe Stan's point is that the extensive real-
> world use of XSD has uncovered them.
Not really. Extensive real-world use of XSD has continuously
uncovered problems over more than five years, and continues to
uncover them. The argument you set forth is akin to saying that your
car is a good car because since it broke down ever kilometre for the
past hundred it's been patched up right, whereas mine that's so far
failed to see any issue isn't proven.
> In my experience, most of the complexities of the higher-level XML
> specs and APIs come from the nastiness of XML's corner cases.
Here, all I have to say is "Huh?"
> Trouble is, a lot of people have flexible documents full of data
> that came from objects or databases. They'll have a hard time with
> the "flexible document" limitations of XSD, but a hard time with
> the "object serialization" limitations of RELAX NG.
Would you happen to have examples of the latter?
> Again, the bottom line here is that it would be good to have a lot
> more hard evidence that RELAX NG is really a more pragmatic
> solution than XSD to problems such as this one before recommending
> it, irrespective of its many excellent technical properties.
A solid, pragmatic take as far as I'm concerned is that
interoperability issues cost a lot of money, that in research, in
development, in communication, and in customer support.
Interoperable, reliable technology is a clear cost saver as far as I
can see.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
|
