Lists Home |
Date Index |
I do not speak for the RELAX NG TC, but I believe the consensus was that we
did not want to create yet another form for associating schema nor to rework
Nothing however in RELAX NG prohibits a developer from using elements or
attributes from a foreign namespace that could do the job as well as any.
For example, nothing in RELAX NG would prohibit xsi:schemaLocation.
I don't believe there is any intent to enter the "reinvent zone"; RELAX NG
will no doubt remain a simple validation layer of processing that depends on
an application or some other generalized form to stipulate how schema and
documents are associated.
If other members of the RELAX NG TC disagree, I hope they speak up.
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:23 PM
To: 'Michael Fitzgerald'; 'Jeff Lowery'
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] There is a meaning, but it's not in the data
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
and lock it to the message. The problem is if there is no other way to do
then, the extra requirement which James is proposing but isn't always needed
it would be convenient), which is to specify a process series. He plainly
the inadequacy of the DOCTYPE if it can't be used to get the series. We
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."