- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:29:53 +0700
- To: www-tag@w3.org
I see several different problems with the PSVI. (a) It makes documents less self-contained. (b) Applications that depend on a PSVI now require a very complex, heavy-weight schema validation process, rather than a relatively simple parsing process. (c) Applications that depends on a PSVI must agree not only on the choice of schema language but also on the choice of mechanism to locate the schema. As has been pointed out, xsi:schemaLocation is just hint; there is no single way that is mandated for an application to locate a schema. XML Schema does not specify a single way to get from a URI specifying a document to a PSVI; it only specifies the way to get to a PSVI from a URI specifying a document together with a mapping from namespace URIs to schema locations. (d) The PSVI is not XML; this is the most insidious problem. With something like default values, you can perform a normalization process and produce a self-contained document where defaults are explicit. The declaration of default values defines a mapping from an XML infoset to another instance of an XML infoset. It is not necessary to add complexity to applications to deal with default values. However, the W3C XML Schema PSVI is not like this; a PSVI is not an XML infoset. You cannot perform the PSVI infoset augmentation as a separate XML to XML transformation. All applications dealing with the PSVI are dealing with a different, more complex structure than applications that deal with pure XML. Applications communicating with the PSVI become much more tightly coupled: when applications communicate using the XML infoset, they do not have to share an address space, because there is a standard serialization of an XML infoset as XML, but this does not apply with the PSVI. I believe this is a catastrophic architectural mistake in XML Schema, and it needn't have been like this: schema infoset augmentation could and should be defined as an XML to XML transformation process. James
Received on Monday, 17 June 2002 02:47:50 UTC