Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:41:24 -0400
At 05:05 AM 8/2/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>An alternative way to look at it, I suppose, is that people are happy to
>use schemas to specify the static constraints on a document's structure
>and then use Schematron (or home-made equivs) to specify the dynamic,
>attribute-provided constraints. That is the model I am reluctantly
>expecting for 2001.
That's what I've been suggesting to people at conferences who want to use
XML Schemas but find it doesn't fully address their needs.
I don't think adding the XPath-based approach into XML Schemas itself feels
'clean' - it seems like a juxtaposition of two very different approaches,
adding complexity without adding clarity. Using multi-layer validation may
not be efficient, but it seems more architecturally appropriate to me,
creating fewer reuse issues by keeping two potentially conflicting kinds of
On the other hand, people could just turn to RELAX. I'm not sure that's a
perfect fit for everyone either, though it feels pretty good to me.
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books