[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > 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.
I was going to respond to Don, but I decided to read on first, since I've already said more than enough on this topic in my discussion with Jonathan Robie.
I'm relieved to have to say no more than a hearty "amen".
I think that monolithic typing is one of the biggest dangers there is to all the unexpected value XML has brought software development.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/
DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html
The Languages of the Semantic Web - http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2453/new1020218556549/index.html
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
|
