[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I think people are taking the analogy a little too seriously...
DB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie
[mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:19 AM
> To: Martin Bravenboer; Don Box
> Cc: Sean McGrath; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
> 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
|
