Subject: RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl From: "Jim Fuller" <jim.fuller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:40:05 -0000 |
> > XML Schema is dead on arrival, always was dead.... it never > > happened......so the W3C had a bad day, so what, lets get > over it and > > use RELAX NG and move on, or at the very least translate to > XML Schema > > at the last moment. > > You have to be joking. Yes, I know the arguments against XSD. > But to say > it is dead with all the industry support, which *dwarfs* RNG, > is crazy. Industry support aside, after 17 serious projects, with budgets ranging from £15k to £785k, using XML technologies.... I have not used XML Schema once commercially; perhaps I have auto generated some code from external xml schemas, or converted an XML schema to RELAXNG, but that was it. ....perhaps this is because I am always creating a certain type of project....I just personally think XML schema never stuck, yes it has inertia, yes every time I start architecting a new project I have every intent to use it if I must.... Cheers, Jim Fuller XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, Robert Koberg | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] Long string - inserting a, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Control DOCTYPE for HTML , Andrew Welch |
Month |