Talk:XML Schema (W3C)
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 Article title
- 2 Definition
- 3 Citing the language itself
- 4 WikiBook on XML Schema
- 5 Merge from XML Schema Definition
- 6 Data Types Added
- 7 Confusing Wording
- 8 Redirect
- 9 Vandalism?
- 10 The example
- 11 Stuff removed from Boolean data type article
- 12 The Page Doesn't Define Complex and Simple type definitions
- 13 Definition of "XSD" is Wrong
I think it's six of one, half-dozen of the other as to whether the subject of this article is best titled XML Schema or W3C XML Schema. I prefer XML Schema, as that is the name of the language, but I was under the impression that Wikipedians prefer articles on separate subjects (noun vs proper noun) to be distinguishable by more than just proper-noun capitalization. Perhaps this has changed, or my impression was wrong?
Another option would be XML Schema + something in parentheses, like XML Schema (W3C) or XML Schema (markup language). Thoughts? See also my comments below, on the initialism "WXS". - mjb 00:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that (non-technical) people's first visit here may be with the question "What on earth is an XSD?" I've added a plain English definition and moved the discourse on the origin of the term to the history section. MaryEFreeman (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Citing the language itself
Another reason I had originaly chosen the article title W3C XML Schema is because the language is increasingly being cited as WXS on the xml-dev mailing list, at least among those who are thoughtful enough to acknowledge the existence of other schema languages. I think it is especially important to avoid any implicit bias against other schema languages, and I think promoting the initials WXS is a good means to that end — although, sadly, the W3C is largely responsible for promulgating such bias by choosing to call their language XML Schema, as if there should be no others. I therefore question minghong's removal of the recommendation of using "WXS" for citing the language itself. The use of "XSD" for this purpose is, as noted in the article, inappropriate, despite its relative ubiquity. Google reports 7000+ citations of "WXS" in articles also containing the word "schema"; it's not something I made up. - mjb 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
WikiBook on XML Schema
Does anyone know of a good open-source material for creating a WikiBook on XML Schema? It would seem as a technology as core as XML Schema should have a good WikiBook that we can point our students to. Let me know if anyone wants to work on one with me - Dan User:dmccreary
Merge from XML Schema Definition
These two articles cover much of the same information--we probably should merge XML Schema Definition into its own section.--Bje2089 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The information in the two sections is and should be the same.--Ernst de Haan 13:18, 20 October 2006 (GMT+1)
Data Types Added
I was looking form information on binary data within xml and found very little. There were stubs about DIME, SwA. This article Web Services, Opaque Data, and the Attachments Problem was a good overview. The XML Schema (W3C) article probably isn't the right place for this, but I didn't want to create yet another stub on the question. When there is more on the topic, a dedicated binary data in XML page should be created. Dw31415 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In the second paragraph the last sentence is a confusing run-on. "However, unlike most other schema languages, XML Schema was also designed with the intent of validation resulting in a collection of information adhering to specific datatypes, which can be useful in the development of XML document processing software, but which has also provoked criticism." I would try to fix it myself, but I can't parse the original intent. Can someone provide some insight as to what this sentence means? - --Cygnosis (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I've rephrased it and added a link to XML Information Set. See if it's any better. Thanks —mjb (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Xml schema redirects here. Isn't it more likely that those who search for "XML schema" were looking for XML schemas in general, and so it should redirect there? Just wanted people's opinions before changing it. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 09:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to have been victim to vandalism. Can anyone fix it? I did a quick search and couldn't find a way to remove it.
I have also noticed vandalism. Looking through the history, I am not able to tell how it got there. I am willing to help keep it away. Does anyone have any tips? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see the vandalism with Firefox 3, but it isn't there when I use IE 7. With FF 3, you can see a black cross in a circle and some crazy text: "This is the Zodiac speaking. Do you think protection will help you, you filthy, jaded pigs? I am already making sleeper accounts. Can you spot them? If your souls are still alive by the time they strike than I shall go to the land of the ice maiden.
ЕНКЁШКААНЛЁПЕЦЦААЭАН ДАЛЫЧЫНВКЁШКАШЕАНЦА АМЫНЮЛЛЕЯЬЦЦЫМЬЫНЕ НКЫЫЪЕХЦЫЬЕНДЁЪПХЫ НЦЕХЁККААМПЫАКЮЫНКЁ ЛМЕЦЮХАЦЦАЁЪВАШМЕЯ АШЕЁННЫЫНХАЮШКААШ ЫНЮНПЫЦЬЫШЫЙЪЫЦЦ ЬЬЦЕХДЬШЕНПЙШЬККЫЁ НЦЙПЕЪЫЬШЫКЁЯА!"
I also see this, but it's not present in the page content. Maybe something included on the page got vandalized? - ieure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The example is good but a little strange. It says it is for a UK Address but then has a country field for addresses outside the UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the choice of namespace is arbitrary, but perhaps it would make sense to use the typical namespace "xsd", to show a typical situation, as well as for consistency with the rest of the article Kwvan (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- The prefixes "xs" and "xsd" are both widely used, but the XML Schema WG in the 1.1 spec has decided to use "xs" consistently. Mhkay (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Stuff removed from Boolean data type article
The following section was removed from the article Boolean data type:
begin removed text
XML Path Language (XPath 2.0) and XML Query Language (XQuery 1.0) both rely on XML Schema for Boolean data type support. The XML Schema xs:boolean data type supports both true and false Boolean values. XPath and XQuery define a set of rules for calculating the effective Boolean value of expressions.
XPath 1.0 and languages based on it, like XML Stylesheet Language (XSL), also support Boolean data types and implicit calculation of effective Boolean values from non-Boolean expressions.
- There are 19 primitive data types in XML schema. I don't think it's useful to have this amount of material on each one of them. And since xs:boolean is the simplest of the 19, it's certainly not worth having more on xs:boolean than on any of the others. Mhkay (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The Page Doesn't Define Complex and Simple type definitions
- In fact, the article says almost nothing about the technical features of the language - it skirts around it, describing where the language came from and what it can be used for, and how it relates to other things, but it says almost nothing about the technical content. Yes, this should be fixed! Mhkay (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Definition of "XSD" is Wrong
It seems that to the rest of the world, "XSD" stands for "XML Schema Definition", not "XML Schema Document", as claimed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulNahay (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- How many people in the rest of the world did you consult? Actually, the article mentions both possible derivations. Fact is, it's one of those handy TLAs that can stand for more than one thing and no-one really cares. In 1.1, it's been adopted as the official name of the language because "XML Schema" caused too much confusion by being used as both a generic term and a proper name. Mhkay (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)