Michael Smith wrote:
> I think the fact that the W3C XML schema offering is called simply
> "XML Schema" has managed to confuse a lot of people-- so much so that
> lots of introductory books and articles fail to even acknowledge that
> there are other schema/validation languages written in XML syntax.
I agree it's very unfortunate that the W3C has done this.
> I think that including "XML Schema" in the official name of TREX/RELAX
> would make it clear to potential users exactly what it is, and help to
> position the language in the way it seems like it is going to be
> positioned-- as an alternative to the W3C XML schema language.
We would have one thing called "XML Schema" and our thing would be
called "XYZZY XML Schema": I don't think that would make the
relationship clear at all. I don't think our choice of name can undo
the harm that the W3C has done in its choice of name.
James
