[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 21:51, John Cowan wrote:
> Paul Prescod scripsit:
>
> > One of the major arguments for moving away from DTDs was that an
> > XML-based syntax would be simpler!
>
> Simpler for programmers, who have bbls of XML parsers to use on them.
> Not necessarily simpler for schema authors.
>
> I wish XML Schema had a non-XML format...
Yeah. I've come a long way from my early enthusiasm for XSchema / DDML.
I think part of the vision that was somehow lost along the way was the
prospect of using XML tools to build, process, and store schemas. DDML
had high hopes for the (eternally-delayed) XLink, and was designed to be
simple enough to be processable that way.
At this point, I don't think schemas (such as they are) have proven
especially tractable this way. I'm moving in general to a notion of XML
as a canonical markup format, and think things like the non-XML format
for RELAX NG are a step forward at this point, not a step back.
(Examplotron's use of XML instance syntax is brilliant, but it's a
special case.)
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
