James Clark has been rather quite of late. There's a good reason for that -- he's been working on RELAX NG, a better schema language for XML than the W3C's XML Schema.
James also makes it clear that XML technologies are a community development effort, not something owned by the W3C.
Here are very significant reasons to avoid XML Schema, regardless of it's parentage, blessing or corporate support:
The definition of validity is so flexible in W3C XML Schema as to seriously impact interoperability. [...] With RELAX NG, this sort of bogosity does not arise: there is a clear, unambiguous notion of validity. If you have a RELAX NG schema, there is no doubt about what instances are valid.(To be fair, James is asking equal billing for RELAX NG, even though he cites compelling reasons for abandoning XML Schema.)The role of a schema in a specification is to serve as a formalism. How good is a formalism if that formalism itself lacks a proper formal basis?
I often hear people say: "It doesn't really matter that the spec W3C XML Schema Rec is so hard to understand; only W3C XML Schema implementors need to do this". I think this is misguided.
Re:A brilliant piece
ziggy on 2002-06-05T15:16:19
Only time will tell. But my money is on the schema language with a well-defined formal foundation, clear rules, and multiple interoperable implementations (whichever schema language that may happen to be:-). In other news, I just got called back to revise some courseware I did about XML Schema. Ugh. One final foray into the belly of the beast, I hope.