W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?

From: Bill la Forge <b.laforge@jxml.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:31:17 -0500
Message-ID: <002601bf734d$61b52240$c8a8a8c0@jxml.com>
To: <xml-dev@xml.org>, "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3c.org>, "Ripley,Michael W." <rip@mitre.org>, "Cokus,Michael S." <msc@mitre.org>, "Schneider,John C." <jcs@mitre.org>, "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Roger,

Having just released not just one, but two schema for XML, I have been wonering
about the evils of multiple schema myself:
    QDML schema-- http://www.jxml.com/quick/schema/qdml.html
    QJML binding schema-- http://www.jxml.com/quick/schema/qjml.html

But I think the real work is in defining a markup language, which may be expressed
as a mix of formal schema and supplemental description. Conversion to a given
schema for use in a particular implementation may be a source of errors, but is not
the same magnitude of difficulty.

I think the problem is that schema are being pulled in two directions:
    1. XML schema for data exchange is a new activity.
        This kind of schema needs to be quite comprehensive.
        (And dealing with a mix of attributes and element content
        makes it difficult to be comprehensive, especially when
        you have either/or situations.)
    2. The XML community is still very small and growing rapidly.
        In this situation, simplicity will often be more important than
        comprehensiveness.

So I think it appropriate that we have diverse schema. We don't
know what we are doing yet. I think you will see more schema before
the shakeout occurs. And we will likely end up with at least two,
one being a superset of the other.

Right now, I think the important thing is to stay focused on the markup
language and remember that schema are part of the implementation.
And there should be room for more than one implementation.

Bill


----- Original Message -----
From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
To: <xml-dev@xml.org>; <www-xml-schema-comments@w3c.org>
Cc: Costello,Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>; Schneider,John C. <jcs@mitre.org>; Cokus,Michael S. <msc@mitre.org>; Ripley,Michael W.
<rip@mitre.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:44 PM
Subject: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?


> Hi Folks,
>
> [Case 1} The January 2000 issue of Application Development Trends has as
> the title of its front page "Showtime for XML".  One of the articles in
> this issue describes how General Motors has partnered with CommerceOne
> to use XML in enabling Business-to-Business transactions.  It talks
> about the limitations of DTDs and goes on to say that GM is using the
> schema language that CommerceOne brings to the table, namely SOX.
>
> [Case 2] Microsoft's Biztalk continues to grow and prosper.  It uses the
> schema language XDR.
>
> Questions:
> . Has XML Schemas already missed the window of opportunity to be the
> schema language to supplant DTDs?
> . Is the world going to be fragmented with a bunch of different schema
> language dialects?
> . Is fragmentation a bad thing or a good thing?
> . Perhaps the XML Schema WG needs to do some marketing?
>
> /Roger
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2000 17:27:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT