[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I think an expert can get the essence out of a clear spec, and explain it
to people in a few clear specs. I am not sure if XML Schema spec as of now
satisfies it, but I expect it will become better with time. This is the
problem of putting too many features into the same thing, with very little
consideration with regard to whether the features are added correctly, as
well as how the different features will interact in this new model.
The biggest problem with XML Schema spec as I see is the 1-unambiguity
constraint -- this gets very badly in the way of XML Query, as I
understand it. I wonder what others feel about it.
Anyways, we know the concepts of RELAX, TREX and RELAX-NG clearly, so it
helps us.
cheers and regards - murali.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> At 02:39 PM 3/20/2002 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> >Michael Kay scripsit:
> >
> > > Yes. I think Schema has definitely fallen into the trap of being too
> > formal.
> >
> >Formal != obscure. The RELAX NG specification is quite formal, but not
> >at all obscure; indeed, one can for the most part skip the formal parts
> >and still make sense of it.
>
> Yes, the problem with XML Schema is that is pseudo-formal. It has the
> precision of prose and the easy readability of mathematical notation. The
> Schema Formal Description tries to make this completely formal, but this
> work has never been completed.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
|
