Re: [xml-dev] Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schema

[Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com> wrote:

On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> There were several proposals on the table including xml-schema, but if
> my recollection is right, counter argument against xml-schema was that
> it can lead to false conclusion that this PI is suitable only for use
> with W3C XML Schema and not with other schema languages like Schematron
> and RELAX NG.

I worried as much.

It's just this kind of thing that gets XML a bad name. The horse of XML Schema bolted a long time ago. Making clarity suffer in the name of correctness is a poor decision.

XML schema is probably the most used schema language,. but others are certainly in a significant proportion of use (esp. Schematron).  To stretch a comparison a bit, Google is by far the most used search engine, but it's probably a good thing that OpenSearch didn't enshrine that fact into its spec.

Then again, "xml-schema" doesn't *have* to mean XSD.  For example, xml-schema...type=application/xml+fakey-relaxng...

Oh wait!  e.g. RELAX NG doesn't have a MIME type... Uh oh ;)

-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
Linked-in profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji