W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Classroom critique of XML Schema 1.1

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:09:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4D851B8C.1080808@arcanedomain.com>
To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
CC: "xmlschema-dev@w3.org" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
If that's really true in his case, then he or she should use Schematron + 
XSD. It's a fine combination if it meets your needs for validation, 
interchange, data binding, or whatever. That's a little like saying to me: 
gee, my user is really happy using Python, my C# system just added 
closures, but it still doesn't feel like Python. What should I tell my 
user? Well, enjoy using Python. Then again, if you are one of the many 
satisfied users of C#, or you just need it because you are integrating with 
a Windows system or whatever, you may be really happy that C# has picked up 
a new feature, inspired by another language that you like.

That's not to say that it wouldn't be nice if XSD could so completely, 
conveniently and simply subsume all the great characteristics of Schematron 
that nobody would ever look back, but not surprisingly, languages that 
proceed from differing design points have differing strengths. If you want 
languages that emphasize reusablility of element or attribute declarations, 
then DTDs or Schemas (which are intentionally very similar in this respect) 
are probably better.  If you want a system that supports databinding, I 
suspect XSD is better. I don't know whether Schematron could have served as 
a type system for XQuery, but I suspect not.  I should say one can imagine 
some rather cool query languages based on Schematron, but they would have 
been quite different.

So, different languages have different feels and different strengths. The 
goal here was to incrementally improve XSD. The changes were acknowledged 
to be influenced by Schematron, and it certainly intended that certain 
sorts of uses of XSD + Schematron (e.g. that min <= max) check can now be 
done without resorting to separate validation steps.

If you're happy with Schematron, then that's what you should use.

Noah

On 3/19/2011 3:57 PM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
> Hi Noah,
>
>> Bottom line: if Schematron is what you want, by all means use it, either
>> alone, or in conjunction with XSD.
>
> One student made the following remark after learning of the restrictions on<assert>  and<alternative>  and the inheritable attributes:
>
>     I see no reason for using XML Schema 1.1 since
>     I can do everything (and more) using the combination of
>     XML Schema 1.0 and Schematron. Plus, with
>     Schematron I get friendly, user-defined
>     diagnostic messages, which I don't get from
>     either XML Schema 1.0 or 1.1
>
> How would you respond to that? What does XML Schema 1.1 give that can't already be obtained using XML Schema 1.0 and Schematron?
>
> /Roger
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 21:10:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 19 March 2011 21:10:02 GMT