[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:14:10 -0500
> In my view, information architectures based on XML
> will be driven by XML schemas (hence the bean example in my last post). A
> given schema tells you how to process a given class of instances, so you
> have to have a single schema for a given instance. This seems emminently
> logical to me, but I'd be curious to hear some justification for the
> opposite view.
I think this is a very domain-specific view.
At the end of the day, a schema has *no* natural ability to enforce
processing on an application. An application can *use* schemas to
help decide how to process an instance, but it is the *application*
that interprets the instance, not the schema. In your domain,
(Bean serialization) you may state that the schema defines
interpretation, but that view is limited to the specific application.
A schema is simply a type *projection*, or an *assertion* that may,
or may not be used. You can, and often do project different types
onto a given instance.
A (somehwat?) clear example of this is literate programming: I can
treat the document as something to be printed, or I can interpret
it as a program. For example:
How do you interpret this?