XML.orgXML.org
FOCUS AREAS |XML-DEV |XML.org DAILY NEWSLINK |REGISTRY |RESOURCES |ABOUT
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] Will the next version of XML Schema have a schema-for-schemasthat is standalone (no English prose needed to describe constraints in thelanguage)?

Rick Jelliffe writes:

> In XSD, for example, the use of elements to describe complexContent and
> simpleContent is jarringly odd and unpleasant, and it comes from the
> fact that XSD cannot use attributes to select a content model. Elements
> is all it has in this situation.

Yes, indeed!  That was exactly the reason for that clumsy syntax, and some 
of us argued that having a more convenient syntax was more important than 
having the schema language be able to put a tight bound on its own 
validation.  Of all the truly questionnable design decisions that I 
contributed to, this is the one on which I wish that I had more strongly 
non-concurred.  I did advocate a simpler syntax, but when the more complex 
one got more support in the workging group, I went along.  In retrospect, 
I think that was a big mistake.  While there are many reasons, often 
discussed, why some aspects of schema are truly and structuarlly (too) 
complex, but users' experiences are greatly complicated by the fact that 
the syntax is so unnecessarily clusmy.  For example, there's nothing 
structural in the language that would prevent a syntax like:

        <element name='e' type="xsd:integer" maxInclusive="10"/>

This would map just fine to the components we have, and could have been 
offered instead of:

        <element name="e">
          <xsd:simpleType>
            <xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer">
            <xsd:maxInclusive value="10"/>
            </xsd:restriction>
          </xsd:simpleType>
        </element>

The latter is arguably better markup and is certainly more explicit.  To 
build components for the former, you'd need to follow a runtime type graph 
to find out that xsd:integer is a simpletype.  That's not something you're 
at all likely to be able to talk about in a Schema for Schemas.  Still, I 
bet a lot of people who hand author schemas would prefer the shorter 
syntax.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------






[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