Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Rob,

Support which is incomplete and based on a long obsoleted version of the WD (9/24/1999).
I think this supports my claim that the tools do not yet exist to support its use. Of course,
there are also the other burning issues regarding XSchema raised by David Webber and others
which will most assuredly need to be addressed.

Chris

Rob Weltman wrote:

> 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