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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Interesting pair of comments (was Re: [xml-dev] SchemaExp

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Pete Cordell wrote:

> The low level XML parser would have to accept mixed, and the binding logic
> would need to handle unexpected mixed content gracefully in the same way
> that the whole system might have to handle <<<<< or any other number of
> illegal XML syntax gracefully.  But I don't think that means that an domain
> specific specification language must be able to specify that some construct
> is mixed.

You're mixing syntax and semantics. Handling <<<<< properly is a syntax 
issue. It is a well-formedness error. Handling <p>This is 
<strong>very</strong> important</p> when the schema says mixed content 
is not allowed is a very different issue that requires a different response.

regardless, mixed content is not as uncommon or unexpected as many 
people think. It is not an accident. It is not bad form. It is not 
something to be avoided. It is the very natural way to express many 
extremely common constructs when modeling information, including 
so-called data-oriented applications (as if any information content were 
not data). Excluding mixed content from a schema language is like 
excluding a reverse from a car's transmission. 99% of the time you might 
drive  in forward mode, but not having the reverse gear when you need it 
will leave your car (or application) stuck in a dead end it can't be 
extricated from without a tow truck.

Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!


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

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