re: Rules & Grammars
Tim Bray writes: > So I say to you all: go back in your caves and come out with > *one* schema facility that lets me write grammars when I want > to and xpath expressions when I want to, and has an elegantly > unified syntax. Then declare victory. For extra credit, > replace entities too (just kidding). -Tim I'm going to take up my wand and play my old role of layering-fairy again. I think that a couple of points are obvious: 1. There are different levels at which people want to write schemas: raw elements and attributes (i.e. XML Schema), generic entities and relationships (i.e. RDF Schema), domain-specific data (i.e. XBRL), etc. 2. An enormous part of the infrastructure for grammatical schemas is the same whether you're using a schema to describe raw markup or higher-level items like objects or accounting entries. Ideally, then, we'd want a layer to capture what most grammatical schemas have in common (i.e. a generic schema Namespace), and then allow the differences to be layered on top (i.e. the XML structure Namespace, the entity-relationship Namespace, etc.). It may or may not be too late for that. In any case, I'm not volunteering. All the best, David -- David Megginson david@m... http://www.megginson.com/
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