• To: "'ht@c...'" <ht@c...>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:31:04 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Sure, Henry, but that is what SOAP needs.  It doesn't 
mean that is what all applications of XML need.  How 
about well-considered alternatives for applications 
that don't need reliable type assertions? I like XML Schema for 
some kinds of work and given the size of the disks 
I can get these days, my toolbox isn't THAT full.

len


From: ht@c... [mailto:ht@c...]

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> writes:

<snip/>

> I wonder if Don's actually tried RELAX NG.  I'd be curious if "one hit
> and you're hooked" would get him too.  (That mantra speaks to the
> quality of the product much better than "everybody's doing it", which
> is what I tend to hear from W3C XML Schema supporters.)

I doubt it -- the reason for SOAP's dependence on XML Schema is that
XML Schema provides type assertions for all constituents of the
message payload, and SOAP marshalling and unmarshalling depend (sensibly)
on this.  RELAX NG is constitutionally incapable of providing reliable 
type assertions.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: How to declare a int variable in XSL
• Previous by thread: Borrowed email address for virus
• Next by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread