RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
Thanks Michael. This seems to be James' summary: "The problem of associating a schema with a document is really just a special case of the problem of associating processing with a document. What is needed is a solution that can specify a series of processes to be applied to a document." The DTD isn't bad per se. It is for those who really do want to assert their intent and lock it to the message. The problem is if there is no other way to do that, and then, the extra requirement which James is proposing but isn't always needed (again, it would be convenient), which is to specify a process series. He plainly points out the inadequacy of the DOCTYPE if it can't be used to get the series. We used to put NOTATIONs on attributes but one per element type. Series of processes? That sounds like arch forms and/or PIs if one doesn't want to Java. "Look at the signpost up ahead. Next stop, The Reinvent Zone." We gotta stop doing that sometime if we expect XML to survive the coming counter-revolution (bored minds, a big net, cheap software, the irresistable generational urge to tell your parents they are ugly know nothings). len -----Original Message----- From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:mike@w...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >For schemas, nyet. But for the Schema Definition >language itself, da. I don't know what RELAX NG >is using for this. Anyone? Here is a good explanation of what RELAX NG is /not/ doing about associating schemas with documents and why: http://thaiopensource.com/relaxng/design.html#section:17 It is from James Clark's paper "The Design of RELAX NG."
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