Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 01/02/12 17:29, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Michael Kay <mike@s... > <mailto:mike@s...>> wrote: [...] > No, XML Schema is far worse, it's a que-perfecto �ber-spec that sees > lots of practical use. > > Interestingly, Michael, I think you are one of the exceedingly rare > people who put WXS to practical use, and I've always been in awe of your > capacity to do so. I think that 95% of WXS use is not practical at all, > but rather sheer busy-work. > > Of course that's just my blinkered anecdotal perspective, but I can't > tell you how many times I've been got on a project and they proudly say > "here's our schema!!!!!" and dump a full ream of useless, inscrutable > xsd:alphabetSoup that no one really even comes close to understanding, > and thus gets ignored throughout most of their actual processing. I have lost count of the projects whose first task was to strip all namespaces and cut the XSD down to a DTD representing only the element types that were actually used. In only a few cases have I been able to persuade them to do the modelling in RNG and recreate a minimally workable Schema. But this is solid text-document XML, with more character data content than markup :-) ///Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
