[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes, that is a good thing. Those sound like good rules of thumb.
Inclusions and exclusions were intuitive too. But they rattled
the parser writers to their socks and used without understanding,
produced surprises.
len
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@attbi.com]
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?
|
