Re: atoms, molecules

[Steve Rosenberry <steve.rosenberry@verizon.net>]

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> Yep.  I think it's probably worth going ahead with a larger-scale
> exploration of the possibilities.  This doesn't appear to be the opinion of
> the Schema WG, if Noah Mendelson's reply to your proposal is to be believed:
>


Noah's main justification against the proposal came down to this:

===

"The XML Recommendation itself is very clear that [1]: "Terseness in XML
markup is of minimal importance."  While individual cases require
judgment, it seems a mistake in general to try and use schemas to undo
this stylistic decision. ...
  
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-origin-goals"

===

I choose these other XML goals as justification for datatypes as regular
expression atoms:

  2. XML shall support a wide variety of applications.
  6. XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear.
  9. XML documents shall be easy to create.

Goals 6 and 9 are in direct competition with goal 10 which Noah
referenced.  As for goal 2, the reason I am specifically looking at XML
as a solution is that I can define my own application specific language
that comes with a strong already written parser.  By adding parser
constructs that simplify and clarify my specific language, my users gain
more benefits from goals 6 and 9.  

On the other hand and in the interest of fairness, all the features that
everyone in the XML community keeps adding on top of the original XML
spec (Schema, SOAP, etc...) contradicts another of the original XML
goals:

  5. The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the 
     absolute minimum, ideally zero.

I guess that's why we keep creating new names for all these other
features...


-- 
Steve Rosenberry
Sr. Partner

Electronic Solutions Company -- For the Home of Integration
http://ElectronicSolutionsCo.com

http://BetterGoBids.com -- The Premier GoTo Bid Management Tool

(610) 670-1710