Re: RELAX NG and W3C XML Schema

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[This discussion should likely find a home elsewhere, as we've already 
agreed that removing the language privileging W3C XML Schema is reasonable 
for the document this list is discussing.  xml-dev, anyone?]

At 12:31 PM 6/7/2002 -0700, Eric Sedlar wrote:
> Schema wanted to support all of the document-centric stuff too.  So you are
> willing to use an XML type description language that has a hard time
> supporting existing search technologies, and are willing to cut off a huge
> installed base?

By "supporting existing search technologies" do you mean "forcing 
assumptions from relational databases into schema tools meant for a 
hierarchical system in order to simplify processing in the relational 
database system"?

I'm hardly convinced that piling this baggage into W3C XML Schema was the 
most appropriate means of integrating markup and relational databases.  It 
seems to force processing assumptions deeply into modeling, in ways that 
are very difficult to recover from.

>   The IETF has always favored getting a broader set of
> technology platform implementations of its standards over ideological
> purity--this doesn't sound like IETF-zen to me.

I've never gotten a sense that the IETF is happy to bless whatever comes 
along without at least examining it closely.

I'm also not entirely sure why criticism of the quality of W3C specs, be 
they W3C XML Schema or W3C SOAP, is taken as an "ideological" (or heck, 
"aesthetic") battle rather than a good-faith effort to arrive at standards 
which are technically more plausible than compromises between members with 
very different goals.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue