[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Schemas and entities (was "And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!")
- From: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:47:33 +1100
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Sorry this takes you by surprise, and with a negative response. We
> think it's a _very_ important property of XML Schema that it builds on
> _top_ of XML 1.0 plus Namespaces, and starts where they leave off,
> rather than starting all over again at the level of BNFs for character
> sequences. Providing the latter would have _considerably_ increased
> the size of an already large spec.
I can certainly accept that, and in general I don't object to the idea of
modularising the various processing stages. I think I now see how schemas
replace DTDs - please correct me if I'm wrong. In the event that I wanted to
employ a dataflow that involved general entities that did more than just string
replacement, I would have to:
a) create an instance with entities,
b) process my instance against a DTD,
c) use some means to insert namespaces,
d) validate with a schema-driven processor.
The new dataflow appears to be:
a) create an instance that uses namespaces but not entities,
b) validate with a schema-driven processor.
Logically, I shouldn't use entities, because I'd be required to employ a process
that doesn't play with namespaces or schemas, so I'd need to do a lot more
fiddling. On the other hand, if it's important that I use entities I still can,
as long as I'm prepared to put up with managing a sloppy set of processes. Is
that a fair summary of the situation?
Marcus Carr email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."