- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 02:28:06 -0400
- To: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
- Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Bryan Rasmussen > Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > > XML Schema > >is no more complex to implement well than languages like, say, Java. > This may well be the most damning indictment > of XML Schema that I have ever > read. ...and presumably of XSL as well. We've built both Schema and XSL implementations in my group. I'd say that getting XSL to run correctly might be just a bit easier than getting Schema to run, but the difference isn't huge. Conversely, I'd say that getting an XSL system to run a wide range of cases interestingly fast is significantly more difficult than to get a schema implementation to run interestingly fast. I've never built an actual Java runtime, but my guess is that XML Schema is actually much simpler, except perhaps if youi're doing a really toy interpreter for Java. I'm not trying to justify unduly complex technologies. I've already said that I thought the schema language could have been and should have been simpler, cleaner, more orthogonal, etc. I am noting that there are other XML technologies of broadly the same complexity as Schema that are well received. Yes, XSL is in some respects better designed, and the documentation on it is much more approachable. Java came up because you seemed to imply that systems of the complexity of Schema suggested a need for managing subset implementations; I was using Java as an existence proof of an even more complex system in which such subsets are not tolerated (either legally or technically) and have not been shown to be necessary. For that matter, I don't think the community would be very happy if XSL implementations dropped features that proved to be work to get right (priority?) -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 06:28:15 UTC