Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thanks Michael. This seems to be James' summary:
"The problem of associating a schema with a document is really just a special case of the problem of associating processing with a document. What is needed is a solution that can specify a series of processes to be applied to a document."
The DTD isn't bad per se. It is for those who really do want to assert their intent
and lock it to the message. The problem is if there is no other way to do that, and
then, the extra requirement which James is proposing but isn't always needed (again,
it would be convenient), which is to specify a process series. He plainly points out
the inadequacy of the DOCTYPE if it can't be used to get the series. We used to
put NOTATIONs on attributes but one per element type.
Series of processes? That sounds like arch forms and/or PIs if one doesn't want to Java.
"Look at the signpost up ahead. Next stop, The Reinvent Zone."
We gotta stop doing that sometime if we expect XML to survive
the coming counter-revolution (bored minds, a big net, cheap
software, the irresistable generational urge to tell your
parents they are ugly know nothings).
From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:email@example.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>For schemas, nyet. But for the Schema Definition
>language itself, da. I don't know what RELAX NG
>is using for this. Anyone?
Here is a good explanation of what RELAX NG is /not/ doing about associating
schemas with documents and why:
It is from James Clark's paper "The Design of RELAX NG."