OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   R: [xml-dev] Number of active public XML schemas

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da:	Ronald Bourret [SMTP:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
> Inviato:	marted́ 2 novembre 2004 7.06
> A:	'xml-dev'
> Oggetto:	Re: [xml-dev] Number of active public XML schemas
> Michael Kay wrote:
	>>Or because they [DTDs] are easier to understand, 
	>> I have yet to see a DTD of more than trivial size that is not
	>> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash enough to make a
one line
	>> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter entities and
	>> sections.

	>From personal experience, I'd have to say that complex DTDs are 
	>slightly more penetrable than XSDs. As a user, I'm usually just
	>to find out one or two things and I can do this by chasing entities

	>through the DTD with a text editor. I give up completely when faced
	>a complex XSD document. (And in neither case can I get an overall

	>Which raises an interesting question: Should there be a non-XML
	>for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been an article of

	>faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if for no other

	>reason than not having to write another parser. But one does have

I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML:
seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a "self-describing" language
syntax avoids the users from learning a new one and allows to leverage many
existing applications derived from the original spec (in this case, XML
spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically generate brand new
schemas through XSL transformations.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS