• To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>,"Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Subject: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>
• Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:16:33 +0300
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcISqG6Cwi9gPISOR1eavvaIZPkMwgAAEBsQ
• Thread-topic: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It

> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] 

> From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
> 
> > "If everyone develops their own data, schemas and 
> definitions, we have a
> > Tower of Babel and we haven't gotten what we wanted."

I cannot agree with that, that is, if I understand you correctly. A
number of applications processing the same kind of XML may require
different detail of validation or different kind of validation
altogether. As long as the schema languages used are standard, I see no
reason for concern. I do not consider a schema *document* to be a
language. The schema language on the other hand is to be considered a
language (per your Tower of Babel) but having a number of
different(schema) languages is a good thing; much the same way having
music and written speech available as mediums for expression is.



[Rick Jelliffe]
> So if a computer makes up a schema automatically to fit some 
> data (e.g. .NET)
> that is good, but if a person does it, it is bad?

Nope. He is probably writing a schema according to his requirements,
which is more one can say about automatically generated schemas.

Cheers,

Manos

• Prev by Date: Re: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Next by Date: RE: Error in a Class Cast
• Previous by thread: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Next by thread: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread