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

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

It's merely a strawman though to suggest the level of
simplicity which might make a MicroSchema language
feasible with supposed 'validating' MicroXML parsers.

Maybe a '@ref' attribute on element is still necessary.
I can't yet imagine how an 'element' element would be
defined as recursive without being global and referenced
within itself.

There might need to be attributes for cardinality added
too. Plus I remember my own arguments for allowing
datatypes to be defined as either ordered or unordered
arrays to compete with JSON.

In any case I guess a typical MicroXML parser would
defer validation so there is less importance how validation
is done.
----
Stephen D Green



On 17 December 2010 15:22, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Stephen Green
> <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I see your point : simplicity over all.
> Ok for me.
> (We will add referencing in MiniXSD :)
>