|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Rules & Grammars
From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...> > XML Schema, OTOH: why *that* is so hard that I fear I'm unable. I think XML Schemas specs are being written so that implementers can tick off that they have implemented parts. Probably what is needed is for enough simple schemas to come out to demonstrate the appropriate cliches. If the Great Ox is correct, and understanding involves going from what is well-known to what is less well-known, then probably many people will need to see what the analogs of DTD constructs are in order to get the idea. From the look of the pre-draft XHTML modularization spec, I think that will be very useful for people. When I am teaching beginnning XML Schemas, I don't even mention the syntax; I start with the datatypes, go from there to type derivation ideas, and then to the structural compents, and finally how schemas are located and how validation is performed. Audiences seem happy and positive. I don't believe XML Schemas is something that can be learned well from just looking at instances--so first the ideas then the DTD equivalents and only after that the details of syntax. > If you pile rule-based stuff onto the already overreaching > Tower of Babel, you might well get a pile of rubble. Here here. Another point is that the abstract objects being manipulated in different paradigms have no connection with one another: there may be no conceptual fit. A pattern in Schematron is a grouping of nodes potentially from all over the document; a multi-key references is similar; complex types are element based or attribute based. 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
|
|||||||||

Cart








