On 8/2/12 9:25 AM, "Robert Raszuk" <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or >enhancement does not have a build in mandatory "XML schema" section >which would allow to actually use such standards based enhancement in >vendor agnostic way ? For docs that use XML, requiring some form of schema makes sense. However, what we're finding at the application layer is that often times using JSON (see RFC 4627) ends up with better interoperability more quickly than using XML, except in the case of human-readable content like marked-up text. See RFC 6120, Appendix A (http://goo.gl/CBv8G) for another example. For those that insist on XML, RelaxNG (http://goo.gl/MYnB1) is another language you can use to describe your XML, which is a little easier to learn than XSD. However, for implementors, if you start with the schema and blindly use it for conformance checking of real-world traffic, you are likely to have both performance and extensibility issues in practice. If folks at other layers in the stack would like input from Apps folks, I'm sure that we would be happy to share our lessons learned. Join apps-discuss (http://goo.gl/0Otjv) and ask for help. -- Joe Hildebrand