Re: XML Encoding of XPath: Examples

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> And it is the higher-level abstractions which the schema uses to model
> things that give much of the value of language.  Schematron has no notion of
> type. XML Schemas has no equivalent to Schematron's pattern. To say
> "equivalent" may confuse people that the equivalence is the same equivalence
> as saying "C# is equivalent to Java" rather than "a C++ program is
> equivalent to its binary compiled form": equivalence does not mean
> equivalently useful or useable or congenial.

Indeed, a better analogue might be "Schematron is to XML Schema as Prolog is
to Java".

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter