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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Rick Jelliffe quotable quote on the purpose of schemas

Klotz, Leigh said:
> This is much the approach we took with XForms.

Here's an example from the XForms spec, to be more concrete:

    <xforms:bind nodeset="/my:payment/my:number"
		 relevant="/my:payment/@method = 'cc'"

> An initial prototype instance provides the structure, though it is
> application-specific and not generic to all possible classes of
> documents. We augment this system with the XSD type system and
> constraints; XPath location paths bind the constraints and XSD types to
> the nodes. Additionally we [1] profiled XML Schema, using only
> simpleTypes and no structures, and called the resulting system "XForms
> Basic" [2], so an XSD can define type libraries to be associated with
> nodes via XPath location paths.

So, XForms ditched the grammars from XSD, used paths instead, and kept the
datatypes. So I'm *not* the only one who sees the practicality of this :-)

I think the fact that path APIs are ubiquitous, easily just as widely
available as XSD APIs...probably more available is another attractive
point here: the grammar layer can be swapped out for a path-based layer in
many cases (certainly not saying all...swings and roundabouts) without

> With the addition of full structural validation for XML Schema (i.e.,
> support for Part 1 Structures), it's full XForms 1.0.

I don't see any reference to Part 1 in
Any pointers to clarify what you mean?


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS