[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> Hoping sincerely that your book is one that enables right choice
> based on well-understood requirements. Best of luck.
>
Some of my requirements for a schema language:
1) No surprises. I want to be able to express the constraints for a desired
collection of documents in a straightforward fashion. I don't want the
schema language to GPF for unexpected reasons.
2) Good power/complexity ratio. I will accept complexity only if it is
accompanied by sufficient power. If I am going to slug through learning a
new language, I expect to be rewarded for doing so.
3) Easy for easy tasks. I don't want to make everything complicated. See
above.
Off the top of my head that's a few. For example, we've long been told that
XML DTDs dropped the "&" construct because of the cost/benefit ratio -- cost
for the implementation that is, because this construct is rather intuitive
for people designing document formats (translation: it makes expressing
certain document constraints _easy_). Now it seems that RELAXNG has brought
back the "&" at least in the form of "interleave" yet without any great
increase in complexity indeed the language is simpler than XML Schema. So
that is a _good thing_ right?
Jonathan
|
