[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay wrote:
> Yes. I think Schema has definitely fallen into the trap of being too formal.
Yes and no... W3C XML Schema is probably right in the middle between
prose and pseudo-code and that's a very bad place to sit.
If it was like XML and XSLT an informal prose it would be readable by
humans. If it was pseudo code it would be readable by computers; non
optimized reference implementations, automated test suites would be
pieces of cake and its completude and non ambiguity could be proven.
Sitting in the middle, it's hardly understandable by humans and not
understandable at all by computers :( ...
I think that the original idea was cool but that the complexity of the
spec and number of iterations has transformed it into something hardly
useable.
And furthermore, it's still ambigous!
> The XML and XSLT specifications are woefully informal (and therefore
> ambiguous) in places, but the implementations have a very high level of
> interoperability.
Because average human beings can understand and discuss those specs.
With W3C XML Schema we enter in the world of fuzzy specifications. The
best experts become humble and preceed all their statements with "my
understanding is" or "if I am not mistaken" and we see an almost
religious shift to discussing interpretations of the spec rather than
the spec itself!
Eric
--
See you in Paris.
http://www.afnet.fr/afnet/net200x/programme.html#T9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
