RE: [xml-dev] Who's in charge: the markup library or the user of the mar

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

What Michael said.

Situations like this are why for mil contracting in a logistics-led project,
the schemas and DTDs are GFI with the schemas citable and contractually
governing and the XSL provided.  There is a flaw in this system in that the
XSL-FO, for example, inserts boilerplate content and if not precisely
aligned with the governing schema or DTD, inserts information not covered by
contract except indirectly.   When a new version of either is introduced,
one assumes the natural language specification is a gasket for semantic gaps
but this can fail in practice.

Trust but test and validate before verifying.  Saves a lot of stress.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:59 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] Who's in charge: the markup library or the user of the
markup library?

Hi Folks,

Let Lib = a library of markup.

Let App = markup that uses L.

Who's in charge: Lib or App?

EXAMPLE

Suppose Lib = an XML Schema for radios. It defines a complexType that
provides a framework for radio data:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
                  targetNamespace="http://www.radio.org"; 
                  xmlns:radio="http://www.radio.org";
                 elementFormDefault="qualified">

    <complexType name="AbstractRadioType" abstract="true">
        <sequence>
            <element name="name" type="string" minOccurs="0"/>
            <element name="description" type="string" minOccurs="0"/>
        </sequence>
        <attribute ref="radio:id"/>
    </complexType>

    <attribute name="id" type="ID"/>

</schema>

The creators of this schema advertise it heavily and talk about how you too
can become a "radio application" (when you create a schema that uses the
radio schema your schema is a radio application). The creators develop a
"radio parser" that parses any XML instance document using the
http://www.radio.org namespace. The creators talk about their vision of
creating a worldwide web of radio applications -- a radio web.

Clearly the radio schema wants to be in control.

Now, suppose App = an XML Schema for aircrafts. One part of an aircraft is a
radio, so the aircraft schema imports the radio schema and uses the
AbstractRadioType complexType.  

The creators of the radio schema considers the aircraft schema to be a radio
application and another member of the radio web.

Who's in charge, the aircraft schema or the radio schema?

It seems to me that it is the epitome of arrogance for the radio schema to
think it is in charge. That said, perhaps I am not seeing things clearly.
What do you think; is the radio schema really in charge?

/Roger

P.S. My radio example is fictitious and purely to illustrate the question.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php