[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why Are Schemas Hard? (WAS RE: "Uh, what do I need this for" (was RE:XML.COM: How I Learne d t o Love daBomb))
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>,'Nicolas LEHUEN' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:44:42 -0500
1. What about Schemas is hard?
2. Are some of the issues about things Schemas cannot
represent (eg, the co-occurrence constraints)?
I'm missing something here. With a product like
XML Spy for sanity checking, I don't seem to find
the Schemas hard to develop. That doesn't say
that implementing a system around a schema isn't
hard, but I am curious what others are struggling with.
Yes, the spec is tough (they all are), but the primer isn't, there
are dozens of web articles on learning schemas, and
a week or so with a beta of an IDE seems to cover
the sanity checks.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@allegis.com]
> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:email@example.com]
> 5) Our greatest current problem is about schemas. As I've
> wrote previously
> on this list, our approach raises a dire need of a simple
> schema language,
> simple enough so that developers can write and use schemas
> without having to
> read thousands of pages of specifications. We are currently
> languages such as RELAX NG, Schematron, Examplotron or a
> custom language we
> named RESCALE to solve this problem.
We are in agreement there.
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription