Ummm, to be precise, CIM/XML does NOT use an XML schema (e.g., an XSD). It uses a DTD. ;-)
regards,
John
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner@intelliden.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:03 PM
To: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Deja vu Again
Hi -
> Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020626171514.04980a08@fedex.cisco.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:18:35 -0700
> To: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>
> From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: Deja vu Again
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> In-Reply-To: <200206270008.RAA05515@dorothy.bmc.com>
...
> We should support real requirements. Every vendor is going to need
> their own namespace(s) and schemas, just like we have now with
> enterprise MIBs.
...
Gack. At least with CIM/XML, whether it's a standard object definition, an extension, or something purely proprietary, it's still the same XML schema. For every gizmo under the sun to have its own XML schema would be leaping in the wrong direction.
------------------------------------------------------
Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141
randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street
Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA
------------------------------------------------------
My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
------------------------------------------------------
--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>