Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I wrote this article in an attempt to help disambiguate "XML Schema" from the more general "XML schema"; there was at least one article (schema) that was using a general reference but linked to the W3C XML Schema article. I moved that article to "W3C XML Schema" for now.
Sadly, when I wrote this article, I was unaware that there is a lengthy section in the article on XML that covers XML schema languages. The concept of a schema and the language used to express that concept are two separate things, so I don't see any harm in having separate articles. However, I don't like the duplication, either, so I'll see what I can do to eliminate overlap ASAP.
Also, I'm really not sure whether it is better to do it this way (a long description of an XML schema, with links to W3C XML Schema), or if it is more Wikipedia-ish to have something like this:
Thoughts? - mjb 06:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The section on criticism relates to XSD in particular, not to XML schema languages in general. It should be moved to the XSD article. However, I'm reluctant to do this while the list is still in its current state. Although the bullet points are all valid criticisms, they are a "point of view" and therefore need to be presented very carefully, and with cited authority, to justify their place here.
I have again deleted the example C application which someone has added (and re-added after my first deletion).
This article covers multiple schema languages, so why you think it's relevant to include an example of using one host language API to validate a document using one particular schema language, I really can't imagine. It might *just* be appropriate for the XSD article (where you have also added it), but it's questionable even there, since the article is information about the schema language and not a user manual on how to run particular products.
The "metamodel" section added by user Ottomachin flagrantly violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It is extremely opinionated and unsourced. The single source he has added appears unreliable.
The leader of the original XML team admits that they did not begin with a data model. "In the interests of time, XML 1.0 did not define its own data model" [1]
The only sourced statement, which does not seem to be relevant to anything except the opinions of the editor, and has a very weak looking source as well.
They developed a specification for data structures without themselves defining their own data model. A number of people "co-operated" by email over a short time period to create the original spec.
Neutral enough, except for the quotation marks around cooperated, but unsourced.
The result is therefore unsurprisingly a very good example of "design-by-committee" but that it is also a master piece of incomprehensibility is not quite so obvious a result, though true.
"Masterpiece of incomprehensibility"? Says who? Your personal opinions do not belong here.
The following diagram
The image includes extremely biased statements, including foul language.
is an (the only existent) Entity-Relationship (though in UML format) metamodel of the information elements of XSD. The so-called "conceptual model" (in the specification) of "components" is incoherent therefore this model addresses only the actual information elements themselves.
"Incoherent"? Says who? It is complex, but not incoherent.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the ER metamodel (a well known and accepted system of knowledge represention with a theoretical and philosophic background extending back to at least Socrates) reqires only approx. 10 entities whereas this monstrosity of modern day neo-something-or-other obfuscation contains more than 50.
Needs sources, except that the statement is irrelevant and biased.
Well, I spent my time 'refactoring' the criticisms, only to realize that not only were they originally heavily biased, but they are also not addressing the topic. The criticisms refer to the WC3 XML Schema, whereas this page is for XML schema in general. The WC3 XML Schema page already has a sufficient criticisms section. Sahuagin (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why someone decided to write a separate article on a so-called comparison, when xe could have expanded this one. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
From my prospective, XML schema is not a big deal to have a separate article. Definition could be found in XML article and XML schema languages 198.49.180.40 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC) MS
Let's vote (to merge or not XML schema with XML schema languages)? --Krauss (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, nobody voted but we can understand that me, Tijfo098 and 198.49.180.40 voted YES. I merged
Content moved from old Talk:XML schema languages. Please continue here.
This page was created from a section in the RelaxNG page, detailing the differences between RelaxNG and W3C XML Schema. Korval 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The section of claimed advantages of XSD over RNG is not exactly adhering to the NPOV. All the advantages claimed could be considered misfeatures of XSD and, therefore, the lack of those features in RNG could be considered RNG's advantages over XSD. Hsivonen 09:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please address which schema languages are the most recent. It is quite confusing to read about XML schema validation methods, tools, frameworks, etc since they usually are stuck with whatever schema validation language existed at their initial development. This can lead one to select an obsolete or soon to be obsolete technology (e.g., DTD) for XML validation.
Your changes removed information about RELAX NG's compact syntax. If you wished to consider the greater specificity to be more important, then remove the statement about the importance of the compact syntax. Furthermore, everything you discussed was mentioned, in far greater detail, below your comment. As such, it was entirely redundant and unnecessary.Korval 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"XML Schema Definition" and "XSD" don't appear in the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.241.121 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the statements made in the article are technically inaccurate (e.g., no method to add additional data types in W3C Schema, no way to convert between XML Schema and RelaxNG ). 198.169.189.226 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've looked briefly at the two main references and they don't have this advantages/disadvantages approach but rather use more objective criteria. So I conclude the decision to classify features as advantages or disadvantages was mostly what is called WP:OR. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
"Despite being the ideal, the inclusion of RDF assumptions is very pour and not is a recommendation in the schema development frameworks." -- should that be "very poor" instead of "very pour"? I'm not sure that "very poor" actually makes sense (or is justified without a citation), or I would have fixed it myself, but "very pour" definitely doesn't make sense. Can anyone guess what the intended word actually was, or track down the original author and ask them, please? Xardox (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on XML schema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it worthwhile including content relating to SGML schema here, given DTDs for example are directly derived from it? Gsnedders (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.