[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 09:27 AM 2/17/2003 +0100, Martin Bravenboer wrote:
>I think W3C XML Schema doesn't fit the requirements of a "byte code" of
>XML metadata at all. Shouldn't a bytecode contain as few irrelevant
>details as possible? Shoudn't a bytecode be easy to process?
>
>A bytecode for xml metadata should be powerful, minimal and simple: a
>decent programmer should be able to write some code to process the
>bytecode in just a few days with the right tools.
I agree with Martin. And also, a byte code not have so many different ways
of expressing the same things - this makes it much harder to process
schemas. When I have written code to process W3C XML Schemas, the first
thing I did was build a normalized internal format and give it an XML
representation.
In fact, the W3C XML Schema spec gives you hints about how to normalize a
schema into schema components, and I think most schema processors do
something analogous to this. But it shouldn't be so difficult....
Jonathan
|
