[
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
totally
>> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash enough to make a
one line
>> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter entities and
conditional
>> 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
trying
>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
with
>a complex XSD document. (And in neither case can I get an overall
picture.)
>Which raises an interesting question: Should there be a non-XML
syntax
>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
to
>wonder...
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.
Stefano
|
