[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Schema becomes a W3C Recommendation
- From: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML Developers List <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:01:50 +0800
From: Eric van der Vlist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>RSS 1.0 can't be described by W3C XML Schema (nor by a DTD).
>A W3C XML Schema on RSS 1.0 would have been incompatible with 2 of our
>1) Simplicity: W3C XML Schema would have imposed an order on elements.
>2) Modularity: you can't say that you want to allow any element from any
>namespace from undeclared modules with W3C XML Schema.
This brings up the old question of whether a schema defines or models (the
"document type declaration" versus "document type definitions" issue.) If we
say that the schema models the requirement (i.e., there may be some
constraints which are not checked) then an XS schema certainly can made for
It is like the early claim that a DTD could not be made for RDF. However, a
DTD fragment certainly could, and the ANY declared content type model some
I am not up-to-date with RSS recently: can RELAX and TREX cope with its
model OK? I believe Schematron can.