On Fri Dec 9 17:35:47 2011, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Over the time I have gotten the impression that an XML schema is
really a waste of time. It creates the illusion that there is
something that provides help (to implementers and to those who read
the specification) but in reality it doesn't.
Working on different specifications I later thought that the
problem is with the readability and extensibility of the XML schema
and then we switched to Relax NG in some IETF working groups. That
turned to be a mistake as well. When it comes to extensibility a
Relax NG schema is equally bad.
The extensibility mechanism of XML would prevent you from getting
any meaningful validation anyway. So, validation isn't useful
because more or less everything validates (after you add the
extension points everywhere).
So, I believe we are doing fine without XML schema but with lots of
examples. Implementers just look at examples.
Maybe you could therefore recommend not to use XML schemas (or
Relax NG schemas).
Or at least move them out of the XEP itself, perhaps?
I think we vaguely require them, at present. I'd be happy with
hosting them out of the XEP itself, which'd make them more obviously
informative.
The XSF Board chair and the XMPP Council chair have been trying to
figure out how we go about such a decision, and decided the best
thing to do was seek consensus on the lists as a first step.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
