- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:47:13 +1100
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Andrew S. Townley wrote: > I think if the XSD group would recommend what you're proposing, it would > >go a long way to saying that everything doesn't have to fit in the one >box. Separation of concerns is a proven software design principle after >all. > > Oh, we lost the one-size-cannot-fit-all debate before XML Schemas started. Of course, we get the dolorous satisfaction of being proved right afterwards. That issue is dead now. Instead of seeing XSD as a missed opportunity for layering and incrementalism, we need to see XSD like SGML 1986-1996: a large playground being used anarchically by many different individuals, which ended up showing which features could be removed or refactored to other layers to give a more useful playground. And which proved again that underlayered standards are completely implementable: if you don't mind lateness, bugs, partial implementations, self-defeating shortcuts, and user resistance. On Schematorn, the XSD WG are mostly the right age to recall Monty Python's Mr Creosote sketch (the enormous fat man who explodes with "just a little wafer" more), as well as the knights who say NIH. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 07:47:33 UTC