• From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
• Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:57:29 +0530

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...> wrote:
> Because XSD is complete crap that utterly betrayed the premises and goals of
> XML perhaps?

Rick, I do not know why you condemn XSD so much :) I feel, XSD doesn't
deserve so much condemnation.
If somebody doesn't like certain technologies for whatever reasons,
they should simply not use it, instead of saying words like "crap",
"poisonous" and so on.
There are individuals and organizations who have written
implementations for XSD, and I believe uncountable numbers of XML
instances get validated each day with XSD. Certainly, innumerable
number of people who are currently using XSD, do not lack good
judgement I believe :)

> The way to use XSD as a better validation technology is to learn from it,
> rather than encourage it.

I don't agree that, a technology from W3C (viz XSD) which is heavily
deployed currently, and has a mandate from W3C to improve itself (i.e,
XSD ver 1.1) should be discouraged.


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • RE: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Michael Sokolov" <sokolov@i...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>