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

RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar

• To: 'Mike Fitzgerald' <mike@w...>, Joe English <jenglish@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:19:59 -0500

I use them but given the actual fairly low application 
of the XML Schemas beyond documentation, it is difficult 
to determine if one could live without them.  If 
I can tighten it down and for example, the specification 
for the data denotes occurrences, I carry them into 
the schema for the sake of precision of mapping from the 
natural language spec into the XML Schema-as-spec. 

I don't know what the cases are elsewhere, but it seems locally 
that most programmers prefer to avoid schema-based validation 
and use their own code for that.  I don't know if that is 
"have a rock, all else are targets" or "YAGNI".  It would 
be interesting to see comparisons of different programming 
cultures as to adoption of features of XML processing 
compared to their learning curve and their actual needs. 
I suspect that a signficant percentage still treat XML 
as verbose comma-delimited ASCII.

len


From: Mike Fitzgerald [mailto:mike@w...]

Don't know, but I'd be interested to know. Who out there is using
minOccurs/maxOccurs in XML Schema beyond zero-one-many? Can you live without
minOccurs/maxOccurs or do you gotta have it?

• Prev by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Previous by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread