Re: [xml-dev] ten years later, time to repeat it?

[Robin Berjon <robin@joost.com>]

On Feb 18, 2008, at 17:39, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>> Of course, we all know that on this list, but the general  
>> perception (at
>> least as far I can see) is that XML includes W3C XML Schema.
>
> That's not my perception, and I've spent a great deal of time and  
> effort disabusing others of this notion.


Me too, but to what effect? Almost everyone I meet that I haven't  
already disabused at length believes that "a schema is what you do to  
define a namespace" and that you can't have a namespace without one.  
And even then people don't believe me, half the time I have to pull  
out my résumé and assorted authority arguments for folks to budge  
because clearly what they believe is what they were taught in  
university, in training sessions, in blogs, by friends, in the trade  
press, etc. There doesn't seem to be enough of us to dispel this  
specific error (and a few others).

I also think that Eric is right in that refactoring XML would be a  
chance to refactor the technologies that are used with it. In  
addition to schemata the DOM would be a very nice candidate, as you  
no doubt agree.

--
Robin Berjon
........................................................................
"In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely
  criticised and generally regarded as a bad move."
                         -- Douglas Adams