ricko at allette.com.au
Wed Jun 30 08:07:13 BST 1999
From: Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net>
>This is true. You've helped me to realize that I don't dislike
>instance-syntax schemas -- I dislike instance-syntax content models.
>is no reason to reinvent regular expressions in XML element syntax.
Surely we cannot judge syntaxes independently of usage scenarios!
There may be different optimal syntaxes for
* data-entry of content models
* data-transmission of content models
* document of content models
* creating user interfaces for interactive editors using a schema, etc.
I certainly like entering content models using XML-style content models.
But I also like viewing content models as collapasable tree (you can do
this using my DTD2DDML converter and IE5 default stylesheet).
My complaints about using instance syntax have always been the verbosity
question: it is rediculous if the size of a schema dwarfs the size of
documents (for use by general applications): a silly step backwards.
This is why
I think the best model for XML Schemas is that they will be used as
files from which smart forms (for data entry) and DTDs (for content
validation) and XSL (for other kinds of validation) can be automatically
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev