W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [xml-dev] Two Questions - on XML Schema

From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:47:13 +1100
Message-ID: <44112F01.7090708@allette.com.au>
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org

Andrew S. Townley wrote:

> I think if the XSD group would recommend what you're proposing, it would
>go a long way to saying that everything doesn't have to fit in the one
>box.  Separation of concerns is a proven software design principle after
Oh, we lost the one-size-cannot-fit-all debate before XML Schemas 
started. Of course,
we get the dolorous satisfaction of being proved right afterwards.

That issue is dead now. Instead of seeing XSD as a missed opportunity 
for layering
and incrementalism, we need to see XSD like SGML 1986-1996: a large 
being used anarchically by many different individuals, which ended up 
showing which
features could be removed or refactored to other layers to give a more 
useful playground.
And which proved again that underlayered standards are completely 
if you don't mind lateness, bugs, partial implementations, 
self-defeating shortcuts, and
user resistance.

On Schematorn, the XSD WG are mostly the right age to recall Monty Python's
Mr Creosote sketch (the enormous fat man who explodes with "just a 
little wafer"
more), as well as the knights  who say NIH.

Rick Jelliffe
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 07:47:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:56:09 UTC