[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SchemaTA (was: Newbie)
- From: Murali Mani <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
I geuss there are several usages.. My comment was because I had forgotten
about the term schemata, which was used previously in some reports I wrote
Let me go back to my usual cribs.. First of all brandizing it as XML
Schema by W3C itself is quite inconvenient. Anyways, these are my current
there are several solutions to schemas, each with different expressive
power and properties.
W3C's is one such -- but it requires the *largest* amount of work before
it can be used -- first ensuring that orthogonal things are kept
orthogonal, or even if combined, explained in an understandable manner --
for example, recently the discussion on what elements with global scope
declaration mean -- do they mean root elements, do they specify the
root element of a substitution group?? right now each person is using
it for his/her own purpose, and that happens to be only one of such
conflicts. Suppose someone wants to use both the features -- then can he
do it??? I think in such cases, claims such as XML-Schemas support both
should be carefully thought out and clearly explained -- it is *very*
difficult for us to understand what to do in such a situation. you are the
experts in this, you have to teach us clearly.
Also, you can take this for granted -- 1-unambiguity is *absolutely*
unnecessary -- it does lot of harm, and no good?? -- but it was there from
the orignal SGML DTD...
There is another solution which is regular tree grammars, which is an
absolutely necessary step for query. Query analysis can never proceed
without this -- so this has to stay.
<warning>speaking for himself only</warning>
cheers - murali.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> From: "Murali Mani" <mani@CS.UCLA.EDU>
> > My vote will be for schemata purely based on the above reasons, if I am
> > asked to choose between schemas and schemata. But I am not sure if it is
> > that important.
> W3C XML Schemas is what the recommendation is called, so it is like a brand
> and we are stuck with it.
> But there is nothing to stop anyone using "W3C XML Schemas schemata"
> Rick Jelliffe
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org