Scott Tavares wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brett McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 6:16 PM
> Subject: Re: OPaL: DTD for ClassMap(s)
>
> <snip>
> > Your work is appreciated, but why bother with a DTD? I would prefer to
> > use an XML Schema, as to not be outdated within 6 months. DTDs are
> > going away for application developers...
> >
>
> 1. XML Schema are at least 12 months out before ready for public
> consumption.
Wrong. Support for XML Schema (Sept. Draft) is today.
Support for XML Schema (12-17 Draft) is 30 days out.
Exolabs, ExOffice, Cocoon, et. al. will all be using Schemas within 90
days.
> 2. XML Schema is over kill for what i need to accomplish.
XML Schema is an easier way to constrain documents, faster to parse, and
doesn't add any complexity, but reduces it instead.
> 3. The proposed DTD is just a starting point and is used here just to convey
> an idea of the structure of a needed XLM file.
Starting point or not, DTDs are inferior to XML Schema. Have you ever
signed on to xml-dev? Do you know how many DTD discussions there are?
Zero. It's a thing of the past.
> 4. A XML Schema can be generated after-the-fact of the design of the XML
> file structure (defined by the DTD) if one is needed.
So why wait? You want to constrain your documents. You can use
antiquated technology that cannot constrain things as well, that cannot
handle namespaces orthogonally, that cannot allow elements nested at
different levels, and you question why to use Schema?
> 5. When XML Schema is ready the proposed DTD can be replaced by one (if
> needed).
It's ready. Wasting time on DTDs is like wasting time on JServ 1.0
Just because 1.1 is beta three (not production) doesn't mean everyone
isn't using it.
> 6. Do i need to continue with this...?
I still haven't seen a good reason to not use Schema.
>
> I don't mean to be condescending or hostile to your post but it took me some
> time to look at XML Schema and figure out what they are, how they work and
> if i can use it now. Please be considerate of this when you post information
> like this and do not assume that every one is going to know what you are
> talking about. Now i know that you are only trying to help and i thank you
> for your input but please when you make a recommendation please make sure
> that it is a viable one that we can use immediately.
OK. As long as we're being blunt. David Megginson, the SAX author, one
of the foremost Java/XML developers? Only uses XML Schema. Assaf
Arkin, writer of OpenXML? Spends all his time in Schemas.
http://castor.exolabs.com. OR mapping using XML Schema. XML-RPC -
moving to XML Schema. Stefano? Pier? DOM2? JAXP? All the new XML
standards? All moving or already moved to XML Schema. You think you
wasted your time? Maybe you did if you don't realize that DTDs are
dead.
Let's be blunt. I'm writing the XML book for O'Reilly. That should
mean something to you (I'm sorry, I don't usually do this folks, but I'm
trying to steer Turbine from a big mistake). That should mean I know
what I'm talking about. O'Reilly, and soon half the computer based
development groups in the world (O'Reilly's distibution) stake their
dollars and reputation on people like me and Richard Monson-Haefel and
Jason Hunter not only being caught up, but being ahead of the curve. So
I'm telling you that you would be making a big mistake using DTDs here,
when there is no compelling reason not to use XML Schema. In fact, XML
Schema will allow expansion that DTDs don't. I for one think that while
Scott Ambler knew what he is doing, there is more to what OPaL can be
than just doing what he outlined and stopping. There is tremendous room
for growth. So don't start out the XML portion (which will be very
important) by using an old, rusty technology.
And if your time was wasted, or even "not productive" in your mind by
reading the XML Schema spec, then you are going to sorely left behind,
as XML is quickly going to change everything... believe me, I get paid
every day to read these specs, to wade through 100+ mails at xml-dev and
xsl-list, etc.,etc.
Scott, this isn't meant as a flame. But you made some very poor
assumptions about XML Schema, none of which were well-founded, and then
you questioned the viability of an option anyone in the XML community
would stand up for. So I'm responding strongly, not towards you, but
towards your mistaken assumptions. Don't take it personally, as it is
not at all meant to be. But don't commit the DTD without _at_a_minimum_
an accompanying schema, or at least asking someone for help with one.
And don't stop reading at XML Schema structure. You should read
datatypes. You should read the namespace spec. You should read XHTML.
And you will just scratch the surface of everywhere XML Schema is being
used.
-Brett
>
> -Scott-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
