W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2009

RE: Comment on XSD 1.1

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:32:42 -0400
To: Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Rick Jelliffe'" <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, www-tag@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6341F6CC.D18E2A59-ON852575B5.005FD61F-852575B5.00602071@lotus.com>
Dave Peterson writes:

> I see a similar reaction to XSD.  The folks who want something small 
didn't
> participate in development, then complain about what comes out, and have
> once again built their own alternatives, which they seem to feel is what
> everyone needs (or should need?).  (N.B.:  That comment is not 
particularly
> addressed at Rick Jelliffe; it's strictly a generic comment about a 
large
> group of people.)

I agree quite strongly with Michael Kay's response to Rick, and to a 
significant degree with yours too, Dave.  That said, and in spite of the 
caveat in your last parenthetical, I think the complaint quoted above is 
quite unfair in the context of a response to Rick.  The fact is that Rick 
did participate for quite some time in the Schemas working group during 
the development of Schemas 1.0, he contributed very constructively, and he 
continues to comment constructively, even though on some key points I 
happen to disagree with him.  When Rick built Schematron it was with the 
perspective of someone who not only understood what XSD was evolving to 
be, it was as someone who had tried to help.  I think that's all one can 
ask.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
Sent by: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org
05/13/2009 12:45 PM
 
        To:     Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Rick Jelliffe'" 
<rjelliffe@allette.com.au>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Comment on XSD 1.1


At 1:25 AM +1000 2009-05-14, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>But the fundamental problem was SGML was too big. The approach was 
>of course to slim it down to XML, and to reintroduce many of the 
>cast-off features and ideas (DTDs, modules) into layers on top of 
>XML (schemas, namespaces.)

At 5:01 PM +0100 2009-05-13, Michael Kay wrote:

>W3C organized a workshop in 2005 designed to analyze user experience with
>XSD 1.0: see
>
>http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-program
>
>Some hoped that this would provide a springboard to generate the
>requirements for a refactoring or layering of the kind you described.
>Unfortunately, it failed to do so: although I was not present, my
>understanding is that it essentially confirmed that all the requirements
>that XSD 1.0 aimed to satisfy were real, and that all the features of XSD
>1.0 were needed by someone.

Interesting parallels.  One historical fact remains:  SGML was designed
to be intelligently subsettable; it was assumed that there would be
markets for smaller subsets.  But no buyers of software would buy anything
but complete all-the-bells-and-whistles implementations.  The people who
wanted a smaller version wouldn't or couldn't propose a subset that would
satisfy their needs.  Turns out they were a larger market than the 
original
SGML market was, but I've never understood why they had to insist that
no one should use anything but the features they wanted.  Since they were
so big, they took over the market and left those who could make use of
the other features of SGML without any support.  It's fun to jump on
bandwagons.

I see a similar reaction to XSD.  The folks who want something small 
didn't
participate in development, then complain about what comes out, and have
once again built their own alternatives, which they seem to feel is what
everyone needs (or should need?).  (N.B.:  That comment is not 
particularly
addressed at Rick Jelliffe; it's strictly a generic comment about a large
group of people.)

It's hard to be all things to all people, and no matter what you do, 
someone
will step up and say you got it wrong.  C'est la vie.  I wish the folk who
think as Rick has described had chosen to be represented on the WG during
the last many years; then XSD might well have been able to handle their
desires as well.  Subsetting is not evil, it just needs careful 
cooperation
between the interest groups that need this or that subset of the whole.
-- 
Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@iit.edu
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 17:31:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT