Jump to content

Talk:List of types of XML schemas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.234.210.208 (talk) at 05:08, 26 February 2013 (→‎Not a List of XML Schemas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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?

Layout

  • 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

Schema format?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

In summary, the languages listed here should be moved to List of XML Markup Languages and this page deleted from Wikipedia altogether.Omneo (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Mhkay (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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. 66.234.210.208 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)MS[reply]

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)[reply]
Agree; I was wrong about languages. Still, I am not comfortable with list of schemas: something about semantic implication should be there, shouldn't it?198.49.180.40 (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)MS[reply]

What about 'applications using XML schemas'? 66.234.210.208 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)MS[reply]