RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
> In my view, information architectures based on XML > will be driven by XML schemas (hence the bean example in my last post). A > given schema tells you how to process a given class of instances, so you > have to have a single schema for a given instance. This seems emminently > logical to me, but I'd be curious to hear some justification for the > opposite view. I think this is a very domain-specific view. At the end of the day, a schema has *no* natural ability to enforce processing on an application. An application can *use* schemas to help decide how to process an instance, but it is the *application* that interprets the instance, not the schema. In your domain, (Bean serialization) you may state that the schema defines interpretation, but that view is limited to the specific application. A schema is simply a type *projection*, or an *assertion* that may, or may not be used. You can, and often do project different types onto a given instance. A (somehwat?) clear example of this is literate programming: I can treat the document as something to be printed, or I can interpret it as a program. For example: <add><integer>1</integer><integer>2</integer></add> How do you interpret this?
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