On 12/9/11 10:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > 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.
In my experience, writing the schema forces you to think through the XML design, and that alone is a good thing. We do host the schemas separately, but they are included in the spec as well: http://xmpp.org/resources/schemas/ Another option: migrate to JSON. XML is *so* second-millennium! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
