Talk:XML schema

message: 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:
*a "schema (XML)" article
*an "XML Schema (W3C)" article
*an "XML schema" disambiguation page that links to the two articles
*an "XML Schema" redirect to the disambiguation page
Thoughts? - mjb 06:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I prefer this other approach you are suggesting. I think it's too confusing having capitalisation of the letter 'S' as the only difference between the titles (XML Schema & XML schema) -- Nojer2 09:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article on the W3C XML Schema needs to have a more substantial name difference than just a capital letter. How do we go about making this change? Korval 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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.
Mhkay (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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.
Mhkay (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of C-to-XSD API 

message: 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.
Sahuagin (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metamodel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of criticisms section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge prop 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Initial Creation 

message: 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.
:I agree with the suggestion for some discussion about tool availability. I'm not sure how the timeline with regard to creating each of these schema languages matters.Korval 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Talk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CFeet77's changes 

message: "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)
thread_title:  XSD? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If there are statements that are technically inaccurate, please fix them (I, for one, would like to know the mechanism to add new data types to W3C Schema). However, I checked the converter you linked to. And it specifically says, "That XSLT conversion may be less "exact" than a conversion performed by a Java API like Sun Multi-Schema Validator." A converter you can't trust isn't particularly useful, but if you feel it counts, add it in. Korval (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
replies: text: This might be a good source to cite for the kind of comparison that's actually done in this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR concerns 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927235958/http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html to http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SGML