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

Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?

• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:31:12 -0700

I just wrote:

> When I figured out that the sample XSD fragment
>
> | <complexType name="myNewNameType">
> |	[ ... ]
> | </complexType>
> | <element name="employee" type="dc:myNewNameType" />
>
> means, basically,
>
>     <!ELEMENT employee 	(name, location) >
>     [...]


Of course the XSD version and the DTD version don't
*really* mean the same thing; the XSD version defines
several things that the DTD can't even express
(a new type "myNewNameType" which can be subclassed and
reused, locally-scoped type bindings for the generic
identifiers 'name' and 'location', etc.)

It's just that most of the time I don't need any of the
extra things that XSD can express; usually I just need
to say

     <!ELEMENT employee (name, location) >

XSD makes explicit a lot of what's implicit in the DTD syntax.
On the one hand, this lets you override, name, and reuse
these entities; on the other hand, it makes you spell them
out.  (The shorthand versions can save some typing, but the concepts
are still there, implicitly explicit.)


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by Date: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Previous by thread: Really Understood W3C Schema Complex Types?
• Next by thread: RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread