Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
This is a neat way of looking at it. | 1) Namespaces are just sets of names with no additional semantics... | In this scenario, schemas can span multiple namespaces because | the semantics of a document are defined by its schema, not the | namespaces it uses. vs | 2) Namespaces are meaningful. They are not only 50% of the document. | [In this scnerio,] an abstract schema is bound to the namespace, so | that it is possible to write code that depend only on the | namespace and its intrinsinc schema. | Note that this model could be easily extended to support multiple | schema, depending on the first element encountered. In that case, | a namespace would have one abstract schema per element that can | stand-alone or be embedded into a foreign document. This second perspective seems to be close to what EHR wrote, that is considering schema to be the property of an element rather than of the document as a whole. > You seem to be focusing on using schemas to validate *documents* as > opposed to *elements*. If we refocus on elements rather than > documents, the question is a lot easier to answer. Each element has a > unique namespace. If that namespace has a RDDL document, then we can > query that document to find a schema appropriate for validating that > element. ... | Now let's try to compare the two scenarii. | | - Scenario 1 and 2 seem equally powerful. I'm not sure. It seems to me that your first scenario requires schema application to be done on a document "as a whole", while the second scenario applies to parts of documents in a more fractal pattern. Thus, I would read that the first scenario requires a third schema C as a composition of schema A and B, while the second scenerio allows for a more dynamic composition of schema. I'm also wondering if the last scenerio is unworkable for this very reason (dynamic composition). It seems that a schema wants to give a fixed interpretation for an element; however, the meaning of an element most certainly depends upon its context. | In the current state of XML specifications and standards : | | 1) namespace != document type, except maybe for XML Schema which has a | different belief | | 2) RDDL cannot be used to obtain schemas for a given XML document, so we | have to create a document type | | 3) An alternative to the document type creation is to play a what-if | game about 'namespace==document type'. Scenario 1 is | 'namespace!=document type, so let's create document types'. | Scenario 2 is 'namespace==document type, so what is XML becoming ?'. Kind Regards, Clark -- Clark C. Evans Axista, Inc. http://www.axista.com 800.926.5525 XCOLLA Collaborative Project Management Software ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Clark C. Evans Axista, Inc. http://www.axista.com 800.926.5525 XCOLLA Collaborative Project Management Software
|
