Talk:List of types of XML schemas
Reasons for the article
It's important that awareness of XML formats that can be used, specifically in web applications, is made. Main reason being, the more developers that are made aware of existing formats the less likely they are to need to unnecessarily develop their own priopratary formats. Any thoughts?
- I was going to produce a table but instead opted for a list. Would a table be better? For example, columns: direct link to schemas and official websites, latest version numbers etc
Are all of these schemata in 'XML Schema' format? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but the XML Schema page says that XML Schema "is one of several XML schema languages", which makes me wonder. --Dan|(talk) 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. XML schema and XML Schema (W3C) are two different articles, too. I think List of XML Schemas should be renamed List of XML schemas, as the entries in this article don't need to conform to XML Schema but to any of the XML schema languages. --Abdull (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a List of XML Schemas
All of the entries on this page belong on the topic "List of XML Markup Languages". If you look at the individual pages for all of the entries here, you will not find one that is described as a "schema". These are distinct XML languages: a set of pre-defined XML tags that have been organized into a "language" with a certain particular usage in mind, for instance, markup of bookmarks. In a schema, one would not have to use all of the tags in the language, but if they did, the tags that were used from that language would a pre-defined meaning and usage rules from the committee that developed the language.
- Completely the other view. List of XML markup languages can really only have one entry in it: XML itself. An "XML Markup Language" can only be either XML, or not XML (and thus off the list). At the level of the language, there's no real scope for inventing new languages and still having them be XML. There might be some small scope for subset XMLs (that are still well-formed XML) - I vaguely recall something tried for this as an embedding mechanism within HTML. Nor are the examples in this list appearing to be such: they're actually XML Schemas, using XML as their language. There's one exception to that; CDF was infamously "not quite XML" (wasn't case sensitive on element names, but it was sensitive to quote characters).
- These articles should be merged to List of XML schemas Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that XML Markup Languages is a poor term. List of XML schemas is poor as well. From my prospective, in both cases we talk about languages using XML syntax. They are not XML (extendable) languages, at the same time they are not just schemas, as they not only limit syntax by a schema but also define semantic, related to particular application. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)MS
- The language is, and remains, "XML". Nor do schemas define syntax: syntax is part of the language. If we mean "the semantic implication that is more than a schema", then that's heading into ontology and OWL. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Second thought: XHTML - is it a separate language, or just 'a project using XML schemas'?
- Looks like we can talk about a separate language if we have schema(s) + semantics of verified documents for particular class of application.
- XHTML is probably the closest contender for "List of XML Markup Languages" because it not only defines a schema, it also defines a language subset of XML. Given how ugly it is, and how long it has been obsolete, I feel no strong reason to discuss it at all, except under the heading "Bad mistakes of the past, learn from them". XHTML was doomed by its starting conditions: it was never simply a new XML application, it was never the stated goal of "transcode the HTML application from its SGML basis to XML, whilst retaining exactly the same schema". Instead it had to be both XML and HTML simultaneously: supposedly processable as XML, but also still processable as if it were SGML-like HTML, by the legacy web browsers and their parsers. Thus we needed Appendix C, the specification for how to subset the XML syntax so that it was still HTML-processable. For an application like generating XHTML from XSLT, this lack of explicit support for Appendix C meant that it remained easier to generate HTML from XSLT than to generate usable XHTML. XHTML was never quite one thing nor the other, and we're well rid of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- back to the topic: Andy, do you still consider 'List of XML schemas' as a proper name for merged article?
- Disagree. After closer look, they are 'markup languages using XML syntax and predefined mandatory schemes'. 'XML markup languages' is just confusing attempt to say it shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)