Re: Re: How to redesign W3C XML Schema (Was: Remembering the o
From: "Jochen Wiedmann" <joe@i...> > However, fact is, we *have* XML Schema. Vendors are backing > it (for example, Sun :-) and I suppose they won't be interested > in moving their tools to Schematron or Relax NG. XML-DEVers might be interested in these quotes from the draft OASIS Content Assembly Mechanism spec, edited by David Webber who is also active in the XML Schemas WG. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/cam/ at s. 2.7.1 "...a transaction can be valid for the schema checks, but fail more extensive checks of the information integrity. The result is that there is no way to provide consistent replicatable interchange specification using Schema or DTD. " and at s 2.7.2 "Again one of the lessons learned is the "kitchen-sink" effect with schema used by itself in isolation. Such implementers strive to make a schema represent all possible combinations of an interchange, and rapidly the schema itself becomes voluminous and unwieldy, exactly the opposite of what they originally intended to create with a simple interchange definition." CAM seems to be proposing several mechanisms, some of which look like Schematron (using Xpaths extended with declarative functions) or Examplotron. When we weight the acceptability of XML Schemas being universally aclaimed as being large, we need to keep in mind that even though it is so big it still is not enough. As XML Schemas aligns its content models closer to the capabilities of RELAX NG, the natural "subset" for people who don't need the complex type lattices would look like RELAX NG anyway. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
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