Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

[rweltman@netscape.com (Rob Weltman)]

Chris,

  Version 1.0.2 of the Apache parsers (http://xml.apache.org/) contains initial support for XML Schema - http://xml.apache.org/xerces-j/schema.html. Of course, part of the reason for it only being initial support is that XML Schema is not done yet.

Rob


Christopher Ferris wrote:

> David/All,
>
> I think that we can skip the "syntax neutral" aspect and use DTD for now.
> There
> exist tools to assist in the mapping of DTD's to Schema (albeit other schema
> proposals
> such as SOX and XDR) and I'm confident that there will be tools to do the same
> with
> the formal W3C Schema recommendation once it is approved.
>
> I think that it is key that we go with what we've got and not be dependent
> upon
> that which isn't ready for prime time.
>
> One of the key drivers for ebXML is lowering the barriers to entry for the
> "little guy"
> which means that (IMHO) we need to provide standards which can be successfully
>
> implemented using readily (and inexpensively!) available tools and
> technologies.
>
> Everyone has access to validating XML parsers (SAX and/or DOM) today. Many are
>
> free. One cannot say the same for W3C Schema processors.
>
> Any cycles spent on selecting (or worse yet, inventing) some "syntax neutral"
> specification
> language will be lost towards the actual work required of this group, the
> actual definition of (at least)
> the 3 key deliverables you yourself suggested in a previous email.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
> David Burdett wrote:
>
> > David says ...
> > >>>I'm very happy with 4 to 6 months [for W3C schema], seeing this meshes
> > well with the ebXML timetable<<<
> >
> > I think that we can completely separate any dependency between the schema
> > recommendation and our work if:
> > 1. We specify the data requirements and structure of any message headers,
> > envelopes etc, in a way that is "syntax neutral", ie. we define a
> > hierachical structure of field names and descriptions where all the field
> > names are expressed in natural english or short phrases.
> > 2. We map the hierachical structure to relevent XML definition languages
> > specifically a DTD and a W3C Schema if it's available and judged
> > sufficiently stable.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > David