philipnye at freenet.co.uk
Mon May 17 11:41:56 BST 1999
> From: Bryan Cooper <bryan.cooper at veritas.com>
>XML Schema:Structures draft seems too conservative in this area: if it
>doesnt give substantial advantages over markup declarations I dont see
>the point: a little nicer improvement to content models for database
>support and an enormous increase in size.
I am quite new to XML and initially got quite excited about the XML Schema
proposal. However, reading this list there seem to be two views of what
schemas are for and I am not sure whether a schema is what I need.
On the one hand are people who do not like the totally different syntax
used in a DTD and would like to replace it with a schema which uses the
same syntax as the rest of an XML document but otherwise does the same
as a DTD.
On the other hand there are those who want to do things a DTD cannot, such
as object inheritance (<archetype> and <refines>) or reintroduce the
useful but apparently tricky "&" connector.
There is then the issue of backward compatibility between a schema and
XML 1.0. Translating a schema based document to a DTD based one can be:
possible, possible with loss of information, or just impossible.
Some want one, while some want another.
Is this a fair summary of the situation or have I got quite the wrong
end of the stick?
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