Andrew S. Townley wrote:

> I think if the XSD group would recommend what you're proposing, it would
>
>go a long way to saying that everything doesn't have to fit in the one
>box.  Separation of concerns is a proven software design principle after
>all.
>  
>
Oh, we lost the one-size-cannot-fit-all debate before XML Schemas 
started. Of course,
we get the dolorous satisfaction of being proved right afterwards.

That issue is dead now. Instead of seeing XSD as a missed opportunity 
for layering
and incrementalism, we need to see XSD like SGML 1986-1996: a large 
playground
being used anarchically by many different individuals, which ended up 
showing which
features could be removed or refactored to other layers to give a more 
useful playground.
And which proved again that underlayered standards are completely 
implementable:
if you don't mind lateness, bugs, partial implementations, 
self-defeating shortcuts, and
user resistance.

On Schematorn, the XSD WG are mostly the right age to recall Monty Python's
Mr Creosote sketch (the enormous fat man who explodes with "just a 
little wafer"
more), as well as the knights  who say NIH.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>




From andrew.townley@b... Fri Mar 10 08:44:09 2006
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30