• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why XML Schema is so large
• From: David Tolpin <dvd@d...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:51:37 +0400 (AMT)
• In-reply-to: <004e01c3c87c$914fc590$6401a8c0@pcukmka>

> > 
> > What does 'a technology is complex' mean?
> > 
> > For me, a good metric is the relative size of errata. For xml 
> > schema datatypes, the errata is one quarter of the size of 
> > the document. And error corrections don't add clarity 
> > (usually), they sacrifice clarity for the sake of unambiguity.
> > 
> 
> I don't think complexity and bugginess are necessarily related. Schema
> Part 1 is far more complex than part 2, but far less buggy.

What I am trying to talk about is 'unorthogonality'. Bugginess is a consequence
of unorthogonality.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch04s02.html

David Tolpin

• References:
  • RE: Why XML Schema is so large
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why XML Schema is so large
• Next by Date: RE: Why XML Schema is so large
• Previous by thread: RE: Why XML Schema is so large
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML Schema is so large
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread