Michael Kay wrote:
>> Complex data structures seem to lead to loathing...
> 
> I think we have a terrible tendency in this industry to confuse aesthetic
> and utilitarian judgements. A thing of great ugliness can sometimes also be
> of great utility; conversely, there are languages that are beautiful but
> useless.

I should probably be clearer - these stories weren't coming from 
architecture astronauts or aesthetes.  They were generally coming from 
people who found themselves trapped by schemas other people had created, 
in which they then had to find a place for their data and processes. 
Some of them came from people who had in fact built those traps for 
themselves.

And doubtless some of the issues were the results of style choices by 
those creating the schemas, not necessarily the specification itself.

 > Almost everyone finds XML Schema ugly. But a lot of people also find
 > it useful.

Ugliness alone is not a problem - brambles can certainly produce 
delicious fruit.  But brambles also produce spiky thickets that are hard 
to move through, or modify.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php