[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces, W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:58:17 -0500
Perhaps one of the authors can summarize here at a high level.
Too often we need too much background for the simple answer
to be informative, yet the applications of XML Schemas may
be chosen and even built by less than PhD CS types, so some
rule of thumb is needed.
For example, I just read the entire web page on the schema
to C++ toolkit. It is fascinating, but when someone asked,
"what's that for", I was hard pressed to point to any place
on the web page that said: "Use This For This". Quite often,
the abstract for a toolkit page should say that and mostly just that.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
21 Aug 2001 12:48:12 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Has anyone written a concise description of the limits
> of the validation power of XML Schemas, say one that
> considers the Schematron assertions? IOW, how many
> coals to the shovelfull and and how many shovels full
> to fill the bin?
Murata Makoto, Dongwon Lee, and Murali Mani. "Taxonomy of XML Schema
Languages using Formal Language Theory." in Conference Proceedings,
Extreme Markup Languages 2001, p. 153-166. (Abstract:
It examines DTD, W3C XML Schema, DSD, XDuce, RELAX Core, and TREX, not
Schematron per se, but I would expect Schematron to have expressive
powers in the RELAX/TREX zone, perhaps even more. Schematron is
intriguingly off the charts for a lot of this.
I'm not sure that article is presently available to the world (I have a
printed copy of the proceedings), but it's fascinating stuff.