[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
1/14/2002 3:28:56 PM, Nicolas LEHUEN
<nicolas.lehuen@ubicco.com> wrote:
> By restricting this range, you'll define an operational
> schema, and implicit or explicit schema that is used to
> process incoming data. This schema will certainly
> contain "holes", <xsd:all> patterns, or even some more
>"fuzzy" patterns (such as 'foo//bar' in XPath, for which I
> don't know if there is an equivalent in XML Schema or RELAX
> NG), but it will be a schema nonetheless.
That's an awfully good point! A "pattern" is indeed a
"schema," albeit one at a more abstract level than XML schema
languages can probably handle.
Likewise your points about "self-documenting" tags; there is
some implicit reference to a schema or other shared
understanding, and whenever this can be made explicit --
with namespaces, schema, schema adjuncts, etc. -- it is
probably best to do so.
|
