- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:24:47 +1000
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> wrote: > You also link to James Clark's mail to the ietf-xml-use alias where he challenges their > recommendation of W3C XML Schema. I refuted about two of his points on XML- > DEV. The rest are mostly valid criticisms of W3C XML Schemas inability to describe > complex co-occurence constraints and the fact that the W3C XML Schema Structures > recommendation is written in an inaccessible manner. This is probably the wrong forum (rather than XML-DEV or ietf-xml-use), but which ones do you say you refute? 1) James said that validators don't report as invalid some things that he would expect to, and gave code. You gave corrected code that would catch it. Eddie asked why validating a document after it is loaded should give a different result than validating when it is loaded. One of the tenants of XSD development was that validation needs to be reliable. But that kind of inconsistency seems to confirm James' point, rather than refute it. 2) You said that concerns that are relevant to general use don't matter to protocols because no-one will read XSD schemas. Yet the IETF draft certainly applies to schemas used in RFCs, which people do read. Perhaps if a schema is created dynamically, then Jame's points is not so important, but I think the IETF draft is considering the simple use of fixed public schemas more. Finally, what is this talk about Balkanization? For fixed public schema languages used to express a document type (for an RFC specifying a protocol) it does not matter which Schema language is used. Every schema language has some limitation at which point natural language is used. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 06:12:13 UTC