Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[seeking clarification] At 08:30 AM 6/10/2002 -0600, Aaron Skonnard wrote: >Exactly. Remember that Don's original comments on XML Schema were >addressed specifically towards Web Services, a task where we clearly >need a rich type system to achieve interoperability between toolkits and >other applications that cross programming language specific type >systems. That makes sense. > > What I am saying, and I have yet to meet any users in the industrial > > publishing industry who disagrees, is that XML Schemas is deficient to >the > > point of irrelevence for a large niche, and that the answer is not to > > bloat it but to build a schema language on a modular framework. I am >only > > against XML Schemas to the extent that I am for plurality and >richness; in > > other words, I am only opposed to XML Schemas to the extent that it is > > pushed as a universal schema language that cannot tolerate >alternatives. > >I wouldn't call the WS community a large niche. Are you saying WS is a small niche, or that it's not a niche? ><snip/> >The fact that the W3C has assumed XML Schema in layered specs like XPath >2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XML Query (the original argument) says a lot about >the technical merits considering the W3C process. Is that a complement to W3C XML Schema by way of a complemement to the W3C, or is that a slur to both, or neither? I can read that one an enormous number of different ways. Simon St.Laurent "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
