RE: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful

You seem to have mixed up threads from XML-DEV and the WWW-TAG. 

1.) W3C XML Schema has the notion of lax vs. strict validation. Our
documentation for MSXML was not explicit about when we did did the
latter vs. the former. If anything this is indicates a breakdown in
communication between our devs and our doc people and is not an
indictment of W3C XML Schema. 

2.) This is from a thread on XML-DEV I'd rather continue that there and
not clutter the WWW-TAG list. However since you've caricatured my
position I will clarify what I stated and I quote 

"Most of the arguments about the complexity of W3C XML Schema for the
average end user don't apply to Internet protocols. After all, how many
regular users look at SOAP messages or HTTP requests?". 

How this translates to no one will read W3C XML schemata escapes me. 

3.) Ditto. 

Any philosophy that can be put into a nutshell belongs there.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:25 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful
> "Dare Obasanjo" <> wrote:
> > You also link to James Clark's mail to the ietf-xml-use 
> alias where he 
> > challenges their
> > recommendation of W3C XML Schema. I refuted about two of 
> his points on XML-
> > DEV. The rest are mostly valid criticisms of W3C XML 
> Schemas inability to describe 
> > complex co-occurence constraints and the fact that the W3C 
> XML Schema Structures 
> > recommendation is written in an inaccessible manner. 
> This is probably the wrong forum (rather than XML-DEV or 
> ietf-xml-use), but which ones do you say you refute?
> 1) James said that validators don't report as invalid some 
> things that he would expect to, and gave code.
> You gave corrected code that would catch it.
> Eddie asked why validating a document after it is loaded 
> should give a different result than validating when it is 
> loaded. One of the tenants of XSD development was that 
> validation needs to be reliable. But that kind of 
> inconsistency seems to confirm James' point, rather than refute it.
> 2) You said that concerns that are relevant to general use 
> don't matter to protocols because no-one will read XSD 
> schemas. Yet the IETF draft certainly applies to schemas used 
> in RFCs, which people do read.  Perhaps if a schema is 
> created dynamically, then Jame's points is not so important, 
> but I think the IETF draft is considering the simple use of 
> fixed public schemas more.
> Finally, what is this talk about Balkanization?  For fixed 
> public schema languages used to express a document type (for 
> an RFC specifying a protocol) it does not matter which Schema 
> language is used.  Every schema language has some limitation 
> at which point
> natural language is used.   
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 08:17:17 UTC