Lists Home |
Date 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 email@example.com
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!