Non Sucking YAML parser
robin.berjon at expway.fr
Wed Sep 13 17:23:57 BST 2006
On Sep 13, 2006, at 18:10, Mark Overmeer wrote:
> * Robin Berjon (robin.berjon at expway.fr) [060913 15:40]:
>> I would recommend the exact opposite: if you have any chance of
>> avoiding having to use XML Schema anywhere, then run away like hell.
>> It is by far the worst specification ever produced by the W3C. It is
>> a world of pain.
> The specs are horrible, for non-native speakers even worse. I have
> no problems with RFCs, but these W3C papers are unreadible.
Most W3C specs are actually fine, it's the schema and SOAP ones that
are completely horrible. XML Schema being by far the worst,
especially since even if you do manage to understand it it then has
several serious issues that make it impossible to implement
interoperably (which is why five years after its release, there still
don't exist two implementations that are correct and interoperate). I
do love this passage though:
[Definition:] Throughout this specification, the term 'absent' is used
as a distinguished property value denoting absence.
-- XML Schema, part 1
At least that's something I can agree with.
> Yes, for instance in my case: my perl programs talk to a BEA
> which generates WSDL :-( It's a pity that those applications
> exist. Even
> the schema schema itself is not validatable... quite bad. The horrors
> of a professional Perl programmer: no choice.
You have my deepest sympathy, I am ever so glad I don't have to touch
XML Schema anymore.
Is you module adaptable to saner schema languages? RelaxNG for
instance? That would be much more friendly to Perl users.
> If you handle name-space correctly, it works. Or at least... it
> has a better chance that it will work when both parties do respect
Namespaces always help. So if you get an element you didn't expect
from the schema you are still able to recover and expose it?
Best of luck :)
Senior Research Scientist
More information about the london.pm