Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rick JELLIFFE wrote: >If by "schema" you mean "W3C XML Schemas" then no-one in the world is >using them, because they do not exist yet. The features may change, the >syntax may change, the rationale may change, the document texts may >change >... >However, if by "schema" you mean the instance-syntax languages that are >pre-cursors or alternatives to W3C XML Schemas, such as SOX, XDR, RELAX, >DSD, etc. or to implementations of draft versions of W3C XML Schemas, >then there are many people who are using them. And to put these two together, everyone I know using any schema language has stated an intention to convert to W3C Schemas when they're done, with the net result that anyone using any kind of schema now, W3C or otherwise, will have some conversion to do when the W3C Schema does become a Recommendation. This conversion will be easiest for people now working with DTDs, because automated tools should be easily available. (Extensibility's XML Authority does it now, although I'm not sure which draft of the W3C Schema they currently support.) One compelling reason to use schemas this early is that you're going to process your documents using software that takes advantage of the extra information that schemas let you store. If you've got such software waiting to be used (whether from Biztalk or CommerceOne or whatever), great. If, however, you were planning on writing the software yourself to process your schema-driven documents, then now you have even more rewriting to do when the W3C schemas reach Rec status. Plan ahead! Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@ snee.com> "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii P.S. the spellchecker in Microsoft's Outlook (used by corporate fiat, not by my own choice) just suggested that when I referred to Microsoft's "Biztalk" that perhaps I meant to write the word "Bestial."
|
