Michael,
I'm pretty sure that only a person who has been thoroughly steeped in the XML community and its vagaries would interpret the word "schema" in such a constrictive way. I think to the average experienced XML user, "schema" is well-understood to refer to any document structure as defined by any structured "schema language" (such as RELAXNG, Schematron, or XML Schema). I'm with Edd on this one: It is definitely unfortunate that one of the schema definition languages uses the generic term as its proper name, but at this stage, an attempt to change horses midstream and use a different generic term than the one in common usage is only going to cause even more confusion.
Doug Glidden
Software Engineer
The Boeing Company
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 18:34
To: 'Edd Dumbill';
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
>
> It's just this kind of thing that gets XML a bad name. The horse of
> XML Schema bolted a long time ago. Making clarity suffer in the name
> of correctness is a poor decision.
>
Eh? I'm sure it's correct that many people would assume that a W3C specification for "xml-schema" refers to the W3C specification entitled "XML Schema", and that it's therefore better to choose a different name. That's for the sake of clarity, not for the sake of correctness.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
subscribe: List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
