Re: [xml-dev] BOXED XML (was RE: [xml-dev] Re: Remembering the original XML vision)

At 09:27 AM 2/17/2003 +0100, Martin Bravenboer wrote:

>I think W3C XML Schema doesn't fit the requirements of a "byte code" of 
>XML metadata at all. Shouldn't a bytecode contain as few irrelevant 
>details as possible? Shoudn't a bytecode be easy to process?
>
>A bytecode for xml metadata should be powerful, minimal and simple: a 
>decent programmer should be able to write some code to process the 
>bytecode in just a few days with the right tools.

I agree with Martin. And also, a byte code not have so many different ways 
of expressing the same things - this makes it much harder to process 
schemas. When I have written code to process W3C XML Schemas, the first 
thing I did was build a normalized internal format and give it an XML 
representation.

In fact, the W3C XML Schema spec gives you hints about how to normalize a 
schema into schema components, and I think most schema processors do 
something analogous to this. But it shouldn't be so difficult....

Jonathan