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

RE: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside

• To: Michael Leditschke <mike@a...>
• Subject: RE: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:30:41 +0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1092337878.1023642512@[192.168.0.67]>
• References: <1092337878.1023642512@[192.168.0.67]>

--On 09 June 2002 17:08 +0700 James Clark <jjc@j...> wrote:

> Certainly there is a need to be able to associate a schema with a
> document. We discussed this during the development of RELAX NG, but we
> reached the conclusion that it was better not to include this
> functionality as part of the schema language.

Another reason I forgot to mention is that I think the relationship between 
instances and schemas is many-to-many. In particular, an instance can be 
simultaneously valid against multiple schemas.  Here I don't just mean 
there may be a separate schema for each namespace: the elements in a single 
namespace in a single document may be valid against multiple schemas. One 
common example is that you have a both a public schema which is relatively 
loose and a private schema which is much tighter.  In fact, you have can 
have a whole hierarchy of organizational levels (e.g. industry, company, 
project), with the schema becoming less general and more specialized as you 
move down the organizational tree.  An approach where you specify a single 
schema in the instance doesn't seem to me to deal with this scenario very 
well.

James

• References:
  • RE: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Next by Date: Formatting XML
• Previous by thread: RE: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Next by thread: Re: Interesting mailing list & a rare broadside
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread