Re: Can XML Schemas Support Document Systems

[Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Henry S. Thompson wrote:

> Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com> writes:

> > The obvious proof that W3C XML Schema can support document centric
> > applications are the schemas published for XHTML or DocBook.
> >
> > W3C XML Schema has sacrificed flexibility (a quality useful for document
> > centric applications often authored by a wide range of tools including
> > manual edition that can be seen as a defect by data application) to put
> > the emphasis on datatypes (an absolute requirement for data
> > applications).
>
> I contest this strongly.  I wrote the first HTML schema (never
> released) and it was _much_ cleaner than the DTD, precisely _because_
> of designed-in flexibility, particularly wrt OO design facilities such
> as the type hierarchy and substitution groups.

Perhaps it is too bad that you have not released this schema. XHTML _is_ one
of those grammars that multiple schemata are available for: DTDs, RELAX,
TREX and now XML Schema ... I was a bit dismayed at the complexity of the
recent W3C WD XML Schema for XHTML 1.1 ... it looks roughly as complicated
as the DTD, in contrast to what has been published for RELAX and TREX.

My rough impression is that this complexity is not a function of XML Schema
per se, rather the implemented schema. It would be very good to have
evidence to support this impression.

Even if not an 'official' W3C WD, it would be really great to see.

-Jonathan