[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Jean Marc VANEL" <jean-marc_vanel@effix.fr>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:50:45 +0100
I more than agree with you about modular schemas versus monolythic Schemas. X3D is a very "good" example of monolythic thing that I studied, but I think that most e-commerce Schemas are like that.
PS
I don't understand "compound documents/streams".
PPS
Where can I find a snapshot of the current SML spec.?
From: "Don Park" <donpark@docuverse.com> on 25/02/2000 08:23 PM
Please respond to donpark@docuverse.com
To: xml-dev@xml.org
cc: (bcc: Jean Marc VANEL/EFFIX/fr)
Subject: RE: XML Schemas: lost "open content models"?
I do not see any significant benefits from closed content models.
Requiring elements to be in a particular sequence nor disallowing
foreign tags between siblings or between parent and child nodes
is like casting information in concrete. We need to focus more
on open content models.
My particular dislike for the current crop of schema initiatives
is that all of them seem to target the syntax layer instead of
the information model layer. Current syntax-targeted approaches
decrease extensibility while increasing fragility of XML-based
documents. Also, I find current obsession with document-level
schemas in conflict with the increasing trend toward compound
documents/streams. Micro-schemas which define basic building
blocks are preferable to macro-schemas which define complete
document structure.
Best,
Don Park - mailto:donpark@docuverse.com
Docuverse - http://www.docuverse.com
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/threads.html
***************************************************************************
|
