use Perl

• Ayup. (Score:2)

  by ziggy (25)

  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
  • Re:Ayup. (Score:2)

    by darobin (1316)

    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]
    • Re:Ayup. (Score:2)

      by ziggy (25)

      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
• Hmm... (Score:1)

  by jsmith (3335)

  So the best bet on getting a new XML schema out there might be to just implement it and ask questions later >:)
  
  • Re:Hmm... (Score:2)

    by darobin (1316)

    I'd say that's most likely the path that walks closest to sanity :)

    --
    

    -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]