Re: ubiquitous XML?
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > And I repeat, to replace them with what given > that they are still a fundamental formal definitional > tool for XML itself? Path=based assertion languages such as Schematron or Xlinkit are just as susceptible to formal definitions as DTDs are, especially if we take "extensibility" seriously and start from open content models. One of the deficiencies of grammar-based systems, for example, is that they do not provide enough information to let you know which elements can be used in external vocabularies and which are compound (i.e. which have upward-going cohesion). All schema languages are partial. Some are more difficult than others, and this difficulty can hit some cultures or technical specializations more than others. I am interested to know if formal grammars are taught as a standard part of US MIS courses (not computer science courses). Cheers Rick Jelliffe
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format