OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] DTDs, W3C Schemas, RELAX NG, Schematron?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> > 5) RNG allows a (simple) datatype to be restricted not only by facet,
> > but by explicit extension and exception.  One can write 'xsd:integer -
> > "0"' to mean a nonzero integer (although unfortunately "00" will still
> > validate), or 'xsd:integer | "Inf" | "+Inf" | "-Inf"' when a value may
> > be integral or infinite.
> Wow! I was knocked out by this one. What good are datatypes if one can
> [not] work in terms of the value space of the type rather than the lexical
> form?

In RNG, you can work in terms of the value space.  If you want a non-zero
integer, you can say

xsd:integer - xsd:integer "0"


<data type="integer">
    <value type="integer">0</value>

> As imperfect as XML Schemas may or may not be, I believe the distinction
> between lexical and value spaces is critically important, which is why
> the constraining facets defined in Part II work in terms of value space,
> not lexical space (with pattern being the unique hybrid).

RNG has the notion of a value space (though it doesn't use that term).

 > I've found that the most important difference between RNG and XML
> Schemas is wrt the underlying type model.
> Specifically, XML Schema uses named types to implicitly convey intention
> as well as structure (a la Java, C++, C#). Anonymous types are 2nd class
> citizens in XML Schema (they're type-equivalent with nothing).
> Relax NG has a much looser model (a la Perl) in which two things are
> compatible if they share structure independent of a common, named type
> definition.
> Each approach appeals to its own community of users in very deep ways.

I agree that the emphasis on named typing in W3C XML Schema is a profound
difference from RNG.  One interesting question is whether it would be
possible to build a schema language that supports named typing yet still has
(at least most of) the simplicity and power of RNG.  However, I still have
my doubts that named typing is appropriate for XML.  I would speculate that
named typing is part of what makes use of DCOM and CORBA lead to the kind of
relatively tight coupling that is exactly what I thought we were all trying
to avoid by moving to XML.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS