Re: [xml-dev] Micro XSD for Micro XML?

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

> Element referencing is not in this example.
> In my opinion, this is a CRUCIAL feature.
>

I left out element/@ref because I've heard so many complaints that it makes
a schema harder to read. You have to use a graphical editor which can
resolve the
references and check for any broken ones, etc. Reading a larger schema with
references means switching back and forth between definitions such that you fail
to get a picture of the overall structure. Without the refs it is easy
to picture the
XML itself. (see examplotron and CAM, for example where the structure can be
'seen' from the schema). Plus, if it is hard for a human to read it
might also be
logically harder to write a parser and / or GUI editor.

----
Stephen D Green



On 17 December 2010 14:59, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM, John Madden <john.madden@duke.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Stephen Green wrote:
>>
>>> Ignoring complexTypes and not attempting to be valid XSD, how about
>>> just the following?
>>>
>>> <element name="schema">
>>> <element name="element">
>>> <attribute name="name" type="string"/>
>>> <attribute name="type" type="string">
>>> <!-- enumerations = string integer decimal date -->
>>> </attribute>
>>> </element>
>>> <element name="attribute">
>>> <attribute name="name" type="string"/>
>>> <attribute name="type" type="string">
>>> <!-- enumerations = string integer decimal date -->
>>> </attribute>
>>> </element>
>>> </element>
>>>
>>> I think it is valid MicoXML, isn't it, and in the spirit of MicroXML
>>> - easy to parse
>>> - easy even to execute in MicroXML parsers if need be
>>>
>>> Or adding a little more and it could be valid XSD too (but that
>>> might be going too far in the direction of XSD).
>>>
>>
>> Looks a lot like Relax NG without namespaces.
>
> Element referencing is not in this example.
> In my opinion, this is a CRUCIAL feature.
>