Re: [xml-dev] XML spec and XSD

[Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
> It's supposed to hurt XSD.  If you're that attached to XSD that complaints
> about XSD hurt you, I'm afraid you may be too attached to the technology.

I am not too attached to any technology, whatsoever. Any technology
that can solve business and societal issue, is good for me.

> Unfortunately, it's also brittle, barely able to represent some common
> structures, offers extensibility mechanisms that aren't very extensible, and
> has lots of corners that aren't implemented consistently.

As I wrote earlier, I don't intend to judge the merits of XSD language
as such, or compare all or any of XML Schema language.

Any language (I mean, the XML Schema languages as we are discussing
here) has certain design goals, and all computational languages are
generally nice if they have met their stated design goals. What people
are saying about RelaxNG or Schematron cannot apply to XSD, as design
goals of XSD were different. And this should be true vice versa as
well.
If a community is concerned about features of any of the languages,
the language can modify itself probably keeping in mind, various
factors involved like cost, benefits and so on.

> Worst of all, its W3C-blessed status often ends conversation, which can be
> poisonous for projects that would have done better with DTDs, RELAX NG,
> Schematron, a combination of those, no schema whatsoever, or something else
> entirely.

I don't think, saying phrases like "poisonous" helps to solve a design
mistake in a spec, from a standard body :(

> Politically, of course it's possible.  And maybe the W3C, which is normally
> (though not always) fond of its works, will decide to add such a reference.

I am not suggesting to solve this issue politically. I intend to get
this solved, as a sound computational design issue.



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi