W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: The dubious XML schema test collection

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <413858C6.595CBABF@quicknet.nl>
To: daniel@veillard.com
CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Kasimier Buchcik <kbuchcik@4commerce.de>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Folks,

Daniel is, to me, the boy in the tale of the Emperor's Cloths. I always had an
inferiority complex because I thought that I was too stupid to understand the
Swahili text of the XML Schema Recommendations (including Part 0), but now I am
relieved.

The only way I managed to understand the intricacies of XML Schema somewhat was
by try-and-error using Spy. I sincerely hope that the Spy-people did understand
the Recommendations!

This doesn't mean that I have no respect for the daunting task to put together
such a Recommendation, or for the way this task has been executed. I just wished
they had written it in English, rather than in Computereese.

If at any time the Recommendations will be rewritten, please add, as a minimum,
a glossary with understandable definitions and examples. My definition of
definition is that it conveys the information clearly, concisely, unambiguously,
and in language that is itself transparent. *)

Regards,
Hans

*) courtesy www.askoxford.com

==================================

Daniel Veillard wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:02:55AM +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> >
> > The XML Schema WG has been preparing a new test collection mechanism
> > for a little while now, which addresses many of your suggestions.  We
> > hope to announce this RSN.
>
> Sounds great, really !
> But to quote Linus "Release early, release often" unless gettting this out has
> blockers which are not related to getting the work done, it seems clear to me
> that putting the current state in CVS, and welcoming help is the best way to
> be sure this really get done "Real Soon". It's clear that in front of the
> difficulties faced to actually understand the spec, getting a really clean
> test suite is the best you can do (short of rewriting the spec or getting a
> full formal description but it's another story) to avoid disparities in
> implementations.
>
>  /me 2 euros cents
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
> daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
> http://veillard.com/ |

Received on Friday, 3 September 2004 11:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:24 UTC