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

Re: Xml Schema profile

From: David Carver <d_a_carver@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:56:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4519318B.8030706@yahoo.com>
To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
CC: paul.downey@bt.com, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xmlschema-dev@w3c.org


>
> So I agree, XML does not need to be dumbed down for this reason.  
> After all, you'd have to get rid of xs:choice if you followed the same 
> logic, and to me, that is fundamental to XSD!
>
I agree, you don't need to dumb down the XSD specification.   
Personally, I'm not a big fan of data binding with XSD, but know there 
are valid reasons to do it.   I did a very informal review of Data 
Binding frameworks about 6 months ago when I was reviewing the migration 
from OAGIS 8.0 Schemas to OAGIS 9.0 schemas.   What I found out was the 
following:


Liquid XML - Good Data Binding support, was able to handle all OAGIS 8. 
and 9.x schemas even the rarely used features.
JAXB 1.0 - Partial support for the Schemas.
JAXB 2.0 - On Par with LiquidXML in generating classes and XSD Schema 
support.  Still however, not 100%.
XMLBeans - Excellent Schemas support, handled everything without 
complaint. 100% compliant.
XSD.EXE - Bare bones Schema Support, not recommended for use with OAGI 8 
or 9 schemas.
XSDObjectGen.EXE - Much better Microsoft tool that handles both OAGI 8 
and 9 schemas. N

I did not test execution, and there is a seperate report that was 
presented at XML 2005 (not by me), that shows even if a Data Binding 
framework generates the classes it may not necessarily generate an XML 
Instance that validates against the same Schemas.   So there is more 
work to be done in the frameworks.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 13:56:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:55 GMT