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

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Phillip Hallam-Baker scripsit:

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

That is untrue (just to vary myself a bit).

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

Well, your snippet of an *instance* document contains a declaration of
the XSD *schema* namespace, which makes no sense whatever.  I don't know
who wrote that instance (which appears in Wikipedia and elsewhere), but
I doubt it was Eve.

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

Namespaces long predated XML Schema.

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

My point was that you were defending an argument I consider to be
incorrect using claims that any XML Schema user (certainly including
Eve) would certainly know were false, but which the present audience
might not recognize as such.

I am not attacking JSON or defending XML Schema.  I'm attacking the
claim of "semantic-first" designs to be the obviously Right Thing.
Indeed, XML Schema itself is a magnificent example of just such a
semantics-first design, with the result that it is damned hard for
mere mortals to decipher actual schemas without tools.

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan   [e-mail]
'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'
        --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake