On 3/25/13 1:24 PM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
Simon, I know you like to provoke, but even for you that's nonsense.
I've worked with XML some 15 years now and have never had the need to
touch a schema and nor have any of the tools I've used required it. XML
is agile as you want it to be; that fact that it is attached to a lot of
legacy / enterprise type projects where "waterfall development" is
common does not make for a correlation between XML and "waterfall".
You've never touched a schema? Not even a DTD
Back in SGML days I touched a DTD. As I once posted to this list, for XML the most I do is add a "type" attribute and I'm done with worrying about types...
You've never found yourself sorting through XQuery or XSLT and trying to figure out where the type assumptions came from?
Haven't had a reason to use XQuery, but for XSLT if you don't assume anything about types from the get go then it's not an issue...
You've never had to explain to a hostile audience that schemas are definitely optional? That XML books needn't be schema books, and W3C XML Schema books at that?
No, since I've been the architect on the projects I choose to get involved with I mostly get to set the rules. If the rules are already set and I don't like them I won't get involved...
What miraculous corner of the markup world do you live in?
As much as I can, the one far away from legacy systems and closer to research (last big XML involvement) and start ups (current employment and previous to last)...
Can we expand that corner?
Can't help you here...
[None of those are rhetorical questions.]
