FYI--off-topic--Notation Schemas proposal
ricko at allette.com.au
Thu May 13 19:00:00 BST 1999
For anyone who is interested, there is a draft-in-progress of my ideas
for a good schema language.
It allows you do things like
* content models for attribute lists: to say element X can have
(id & (size & size-units)? & ( href | entityref)? )
* content models for attribute values, to say that attribute Y can have
( MONDAY | TUESDAY | WEDNESDAY | THURSDAY | FRIDAY |
(SATURDAY? & SUNDAY?) )
* content models for IDREFS links, to say that element Z can have IDREFS
particular types of elements
( ( p | q | tbl ), (p, | q | tbl)
In other words, it treats attribute lists, attribute value lists, &
IDREF lists with the
same strong typing that is available to elements. The foundation of my
is that everything should be modelled as a grammar: if the decision of
to make something an attribute, an element or an element reference
completely arbitrary (from the information modeled), then why not allow
strong typing on all them. It moves XML from being a strongly-yped tree
language to being a strongly-typed graph language.
It also allows people more freedom to structure their documents, for
move to flat relational-style tables without giving up strong typing.
make RDF more useful too.
However, I gather some of this might be out of the scope of the XML
However, since apparantly XML 1.0 conformance was outside their scope
apparantly (I am being naughty: they did an amazing job to pull together
many proposals and put it out on time...lets not forget that it is only
perhaps they may be open to developing in other directions.
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