Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

darobin (1316)

darobin
  (email not shown publicly)
http://berjon.com/

Journal of darobin (1316)

Friday January 03, 2003
10:40 AM

If you ever consider using XML Schema...

[ #9744 ]

...then please consider RUNNING FOR YOUR LIFE FIRST. If you haven't touched it, or have only used it casually, you can simply have no idea what horrors, trolls, dragons, balrogs, orcs, etc are to be found in the darkest recesses of that spec. I spent four hours in a meeting this morning with seven people all of which can be considered to have good to excellent understandings of XML Schema working out issues with just two little fragments of the beast. Very scary things were continuously uncovered throughout the meeting.

It's a good thing we'll have full support for Relax NG soon...

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Remember that the IQ for a group (or a meeting) is defined as the average IQ of the participants divided by the number of participants. Lo and behold, there's a mathematical explanation why XML Schema is so bad and other specs (like XML 1.0 and XSLT) are so much better.

    The best thing that the W3C can do is recognize that James Clark writes excellent software and excellent specs. XSLT 1.0 has a few wrinkles, but it works and it works well because (1) James has a lot of experience in the field and (2) wro

    • I very much agree overall except for the last paragraph. As a member in a WG (SVG), I can't say that I find the process to be bureacratic or bloated. On the contrary, it's rather open and creative. I think that depends a lot on a WG's internal politics, as well as on external pressure to get something. No one believed in XPath, XSLT, SVG, etc. but people had been expecting WXS for ages and wanted everything in it.

      In an evil way, I can't wait to see what WSX 2.0 will look like <g>

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • The W3C is a big place, and some WGs are bound to be better than others. With my recent experiences with WXS 1.0, and the drafts for XQuery 1.0/XSLT 2.0/XPath 2.0, I have a big case of The Fear when it comes to the W3C process. The process that gave us WXS 1.0, XQuery et. al. is substantially divorced from the James Clark model: brilliant people implementing and specifying and using concurrently. That has two major drawbacks: vocabulary design that's exceedingly vague and hard to use/read, and a spec tha
  • So the best bet on getting a new XML schema out there might be to just implement it and ask questions later >:)