Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
1/14/2002 3:28:56 PM, Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...> wrote: > By restricting this range, you'll define an operational > schema, and implicit or explicit schema that is used to > process incoming data. This schema will certainly > contain "holes", <xsd:all> patterns, or even some more >"fuzzy" patterns (such as 'foo//bar' in XPath, for which I > don't know if there is an equivalent in XML Schema or RELAX > NG), but it will be a schema nonetheless. That's an awfully good point! A "pattern" is indeed a "schema," albeit one at a more abstract level than XML schema languages can probably handle. Likewise your points about "self-documenting" tags; there is some implicit reference to a schema or other shared understanding, and whenever this can be made explicit -- with namespaces, schema, schema adjuncts, etc. -- it is probably best to do so.
|
