[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: There can be only one! (was are we losing our grammar?)

• From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 10:45:02 -0500 (EST)

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2001,Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>From: Charles Reitzel <creitzel@m...>
>
>Ah. You have an idea of an application level distinct from the schema
>processing.

Spoken like a schema language developer ...

>The work on Schematron, TREX and RELAX has not held up XML Schemas 
>at all.  On the contrary, the more knowledge of schema issues and 
>techniques, the better comments people give: James and Murata-san 
>have given some of the most insightful comments on XML Schemas.

I appreciate the insights.  Never mind then... is it soup yet?  I do get
frustrated.  I just want to use data types for RPC work.  Would have done a
year ago if I could.

>And just to be (constructively) bolshie about it, I have come up with 
>a new schema language "Hook" based on a new paradigm "partial 
>ordering" which only uses one element.  See 
>http://www.ascc.net/xml/hook  for the idea.

I'll stop now, or you'll just do it again.  You can't keep a good bolshie
down.  Could that be an internal representation of content model for XML
Schema?  With the right data structure you could check ordering on the
startElement() event, right?  +1 for the inline PI.

In your other posting, you infer that the schema designer can control the
use of DOM vs. streaming.  Am I in thinking Schematron implements it's own
internal model of the input and by judicious use of XPath you can control
how big or small that model becomes?

take it easy,
Charles Reitzel

• Prev by Date: RE: Rules & Grammars
• Next by Date: RE: best markup practices, different communities
• Previous by thread: FW: Proposal for HumanML discussion
• Next by thread: Re: There can be only one! (was are we losing our grammar?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread