Re: [Json] Nudging the English-language vs. formalisms discussion forward

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

This is what I was referring to:

<saml:Assertion   xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
ID="b07b804c-7c29-ea16-7300-4f3d6f7928ac"   Version="2.0"
IssueInstant="2004-12-05T09:22:05">
   <saml:Issuer>https://idp.example.org/SAML2</saml:Issuer>
   <ds:Signature
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">...</ds:Signature>
   <saml:Subject>



Interpreting those namespaces correctly requires a huge amount of complex
logic that is completely unnecessary.

Since we had Eve Maler on the TC, I think we were doing the XML schema
right the second time round...


If XML Schema had been better designed the namespaces would never appear on
the wire


Though since the post had no content other than 'oh no it isn't' the poster
might have had a different idea.


Clearly composition of schema specs is hard. Does it have to be solved?




On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Phillip Hallam-Baker scripsit:
>
> > That is because XML markup requires the schema to be specified in the
> > document
>
> Not so, unless you mean DTDs.
>
> > because the extensibility scheme depends on it (i.e. the mechanism
> > is bust)
>
> Not so.
>
> > The problem with XML is that it was designed to be a less awful version
> of
> > SGML while allowing the HTML document markup that already existed to be
> > supported
>
> Not so.
>
> > which meant support for most existing DTDs.
>
> Not so.
>
> > So XML Schema has to
> > have a lot of features that are unnecessary and complex so that all the
> > horrors of SGML could be supported.
>
> Not so.
>
> > Both are cases of someone or rather a committee trying to define a
> > specification for mapping bits on the wire to the abstract data model
> > rather than mapping the abstract data model to bits on the wire.
>
> Not so.
>
> > I can't think of an intrinsic type that isn't a boolean, a number
> > or a string. And as far as bits on the wire goes, there are no sets or
> bags
> > either, there are only structures and lists.
>
> All I can say is, your imagination appears deficient.
>
> --
> Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes    John Cowan <[e-mail]>
> of a creatific thinkerizer.             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>    --Peter da Silva
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/