[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 03:00 PM 7/3/2002 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me.
>
>Did you have a technical point to make?
Yes, Jonathan. The very same point that you never care to listen to, but I
can repeat it for you yet again if perhaps it will humor you.
XML is a wonderful set of tools for marking-up information with labeled
structures.
DTDs and RELAX NG pretty much acknowledge that foundation, and build on it
cleanly. RELAX NG's use of structural patterns seems like a perfect fit
for the capabilities inherent in XML and markup generally.
W3C XML Schema throws away these understandings of labeled structures, and
instead proceeds to create a mash of type systems which impose themselves
on the structures of XML rather than meshing cleanly with
them. Effectively, W3C XML Schema bolts a variety of understandings from
the OOP and relational database worlds, and bolts them onto XML
haphazardly, with no respect for notions like "element type definition"
that came with XML 1.0.
RELAX NG makes me think of a set of houses built to fit in their
environment, with minimum impact on the surrounding terrain. W3C XML
Schema makes me think of a subdivision built by clearcutting the area and
then building houses according to plans that worked well enough someplace else.
Perhaps that's merely an aesthetic point, something W3C XML Schema is
notoriously bad at anyway. Technically, however, I think the impedance
mismatch between W3C XML Schema and XML itself is severe, as W3C XML
Schema's notion of type has only passing connections to XML 1.0's notion of
type. The W3C seems more inclined to force these notions into XML and
related technologies than to ask whether this is appropriate in the first
place.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
