XML Schema (W3C) - Criticism

Criticism

Although XML Schema is successful in that it has been widely adopted and largely achieves what it set out to, it has been the subject of a great deal of severe criticism, perhaps more so than any other W3C Recommendation.

A good summary of the criticisms is provided by James Clark (who promotes his own alternative, RELAX NG):

  • There are many surprises in the language, for example that restriction of elements works differently from restriction of attributes.
  • The W3C Recommendation itself is extremely difficult to read. Most users find W3Cs XML Schema Primer much easier to understand
  • XSD lacks any formal mathematical specification. (This makes it difficult to reason about schemas, for example to prove that a modification to a schema is backwards compatible.)
  • XSD 1.0 provided no facilities to state that the value or presence of one attribute is dependent on the values or presence of other attributes (so-called co-occurrence constraints). This has been fixed in XSD 1.1.
  • XSD offers very weak support for unordered content.
  • The set of XSD datatypes on offer is highly arbitrary.
  • The two tasks of validation and augmentation (adding type information and default values) should be kept separate.

Read more about this topic:  XML Schema (W3C)

Famous quotes containing the word criticism:

    “The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art—and, by analogy, our own experience—more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.”
    —Susan Sontag (b. 1933)

    “Cubism had been an analysis of the object and an attempt to put it before us in its totality; both as analysis and as synthesis, it was a criticism of appearance. Surrealism transmuted the object, and suddenly a canvas became an apparition: a new figuration, a real transfiguration.”
    —Octavio Paz (b. 1914)

    “Unless criticism refuses to take itself quite so seriously or at least to permit its readers not to, it will inevitably continue to reflect the finicky canons of the genteel tradition and the depressing pieties of the Culture Religion of Modernism.”
    —Leslie Fiedler (b. 1917)