Re: [xml-dev] XML spec and XSD

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

Hi Ken,
   I think, the subject of this thread was different, than what this
debate is turning out to be.

My point was not to say, which Schema technology is better. I was only
trying to point to this one point in XML spec:
"An XML document is valid if it's valid according to a DTD", and my
proposed changes to XML specs clearing up this confusion.

Tim Bray wrote earlier in this thread:
Mention of DTD into XML 1.0 spec, was historic accident. I think, Tim
was quite modest to support my view point. But I think, he recognizes
some truth with this textual flaw in the spec, in the current
scenario.

Liam Quin wrote:
An architectural breakup of XML specs can also be a viable option.

I think, Jim Tivy also supported my view points. Even I saw some
support from Mike Kay, but not entirely.

I think, rest of people in this thread spoke against this idea.

I've just tabled my ideas in this thread, and I am sure if it makes
sense something could be done about this issue, else this idea is
bound to be discarded :)

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, G. Ken Holman
<gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote:
> I cited it only as an example.  Forgive me if my comments came across as
> otherwise.
>
>> I think, even a correct implementation of
>> say, xs:redefine on one or two processors is good enough.
>
> But are there two implementations that are the same, and if they are the
> same, are they the "correct implementation" you cite?  I believe this is the
> root of the issue:  it isn't that vendors have implemented the specification
> incorrectly, it is that the specification is unclear enough that each vendor
> believes they have implemented it correctly yet end up with different
> results.  There are no "bugs" that can be identified and repaired in each
> vendor's incompatible work because there is no agreement on the
> interpretation of the specification as written.
>
> The validation semantics for W3C schema are written in prose.
>
> The validation semantics for RELAX-NG are written in formal unambiguous
> notation, guiding all implementers to a formally correct implementation if
> they properly implement the documented semantics.  Of course they can
> implement bugs, but because of the formalisms, the bugs can be identified as
> such without debate.
>
>> Sometimes,
>> vendors create differences in implementations to differentiate (I am
>> not really sure though, if that's true. At least the base standard
>> should be implementable).
>
> And that is my very point:  yes, it should be written so as to be
> implementable by all without ambiguity.  Practice has revealed this is not
> the case for W3C Schema.
>
>> I am not trying to be getting into a mud sludge game between computer
>> languages, or to express sarcasm to any XML validation language. I
>> appreciate, efforts of anybody taking pains to design anything like
>> these languages, and implement them.
>
> Indeed.  And please forgive me if my comments come across as sarcasm of W3C
> schema, as I have been trying very hard to be objective so as to illustrate
> the concerns with concrete examples.  It is not my intention to obfuscate
> the issues with mud, but to clarify the issues by citing identifiable
> sources of concerns with the technology.  Those in this debate who have not
> supported W3C schema have been speaking up in the interests of all XML users
> who may have, themselves, been misguided regarding the technology
> (intentionally or unintentionally).
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi