Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> 
> To me this way is a bit different from what SQL does.
> 
> In SQL :
> 
> 1. The second layer ( triggers ) is the 'slave',
> but the core layer ( create table ) is the 'owner'
> 
> 2. Not only layer 1 is using entities from layer 2,
> but layer 2 is also using entities from layer 1 - and
> the result is 'kinda elegant'.
> 
> In your design it looks like Schematron is the 'owner',
> and TREX is the 'slave' == library for regular expressions
> ( because this is what TREX really is ). This gives
> us the "high-level language" == Schematron
> driving the show, and I don't like it.

Both ways of thinking are powerful and complementary and I'd like to
keep both !

I have developed a simple publishing system where I am using Schematron
to detect the type of document submitted to the system and to determine
what treatment needs to be performed on these documents.

The doc type, namespaces or root element are not sufficient to take this
decision as some types (for instance (X)HTML) are very generic and can
lead many "types" of treatments and the full power of Schematron is
needed for this.

Choosing a schema according to rules seems to proceed of the same logic:
I do a pre-analyse of the document ant I choose the best fitted
schema... Seems very cool.

The opposite would be an extension of the unique/key/keyref function
that W3C XML Schema is considering leaving out of version 1.0.

This also seems to be very useful and needed...

Eric
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------