Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
-----Original Message----- >There's a fundamental naming problem with XSD - it's called "XML Schema", >it's published by the W3C, and it's frequently described as a core part of >"XML". >If the W3C renames it "Type-based Description for XML Serializations" and >lets it lurk on the margins of their spec, then maybe there's some hope for >your suggestion. >In the meantime, I don't think there's much cause for those of us who find >W3C XML Schema sorely lacking (especially for data, which it claims to do >well) to be so charitable. Exactly, this is a problem I run into frequently as I attempt to argue against using XSDL for, well, anything really. It seems we're obligated to work with Xml Schema and what's worse, not say bad things about Xml Schema, in order to satisfy customers who think W3C is like the 'good markup seal of approval'. If you try to argue against using XSDL then the customer will get wary of giving you work because you must not be that technically competent if you can't handle something as fundamental as XML Schema. Of course I make no great claims to technical competence myself and am always surprised when I know something someone else doesn't, but IMHO (which as the foregoing was meant to demonstrate really is an HO in this instance) not using Xml Schema should not be taken as a sign of technical incompetence - perhaps rather it should indicate the opposite?
|
