|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: BOXED XML (was RE: Re: Remembering the original
I think people are taking the analogy a little too seriously... DB > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@d...] > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:19 AM > To: Martin Bravenboer; Don Box > Cc: Sean McGrath; xml-dev@l... > > At 09:27 AM 2/17/2003 +0100, Martin Bravenboer wrote: > > >I think W3C XML Schema doesn't fit the requirements of a "byte code" of > >XML metadata at all. Shouldn't a bytecode contain as few irrelevant > >details as possible? Shoudn't a bytecode be easy to process? > > > >A bytecode for xml metadata should be powerful, minimal and simple: a > >decent programmer should be able to write some code to process the > >bytecode in just a few days with the right tools. > > I agree with Martin. And also, a byte code not have so many different ways > of expressing the same things - this makes it much harder to process > schemas. When I have written code to process W3C XML Schemas, the first > thing I did was build a normalized internal format and give it an XML > representation. > > In fact, the W3C XML Schema spec gives you hints about how to normalize a > schema into schema components, and I think most schema processors do > something analogous to this. But it shouldn't be so difficult.... > > Jonathan
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








