[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: There can be only one! (was are we losing our grammar?)
- From: Charles Reitzel <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 10:45:02 -0500 (EST)
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2001,Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>From: Charles Reitzel <email@example.com>
>Ah. You have an idea of an application level distinct from the schema
Spoken like a schema language developer ...
>The work on Schematron, TREX and RELAX has not held up XML Schemas
>at all. On the contrary, the more knowledge of schema issues and
>techniques, the better comments people give: James and Murata-san
>have given some of the most insightful comments on XML Schemas.
I appreciate the insights. Never mind then... is it soup yet? I do get
frustrated. I just want to use data types for RPC work. Would have done a
year ago if I could.
>And just to be (constructively) bolshie about it, I have come up with
>a new schema language "Hook" based on a new paradigm "partial
>ordering" which only uses one element. See
>http://www.ascc.net/xml/hook for the idea.
I'll stop now, or you'll just do it again. You can't keep a good bolshie
down. Could that be an internal representation of content model for XML
Schema? With the right data structure you could check ordering on the
startElement() event, right? +1 for the inline PI.
In your other posting, you infer that the schema designer can control the
use of DOM vs. streaming. Am I in thinking Schematron implements it's own
internal model of the input and by judicious use of XPath you can control
how big or small that model becomes?
take it easy,