The other SDD isn't in the XML spec. and informal testing suggests that it
is lost even to the search engines. Things move fast on the Web.
> It brings schema back in... I can probably live with that here. Can other
> people?
People seem to think that the word schema has some technical meaning that
I do not think it has. A schema is a document that describes the structure
of some other thing (in this case, another document).
> I like XSchema, but am a little worried about what it implies. Coming from the
> database world, a schema to me means not only structure, but also data types,
> field length, privileges, keys, etc., which do not seem to be in our initial
> charter, although they might be in a later one.
Database schemata are a particular kind of schema. Electronics schemata
are another. We intend to develop yet another. I don't think that those
other kinds of schemata need to determine what our goals are.
As long as we are consistent in using the words "XSchema" I don't think
that there is any danger of confusion with the word "schema" as it is used
more widely (e.g. in the namespace specification), or with any other
particular schema language.
I think that "XSchema" is catchy, precise and otherwise a good name. It
may actually be more precise than "structure definition", because I'm not
sure if we are actually defining structures as much as *describing* or
*constraining* them.
Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
Three things to be wary of: A new kid in his prime
A man who knows the answers, and code that runs first time
http://www.geezjan.org/humor/computers/threes.html