[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: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:03:35 -0400
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0306182113480.2044-100000@s...>
• References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030618210346.03316708@s...>

At 09:18 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
>But that's the arrogance.  Sure, for every use-case someone posts,
>someone can post a counter-example.  That doesn't make the uses less
>useful.

To me the arrogance arises from standardizing such things to the maximum 
extent possible.  Taking a use case which seems plainly marginal and gluing 
it into a specification which affects a large number of people who don't 
actually need it imposes costs that the arrogant prefer to ignore.

>The more the infrastructure can do, the better.

The more _my_ infrastructure can do, the better.  The less _your_ 
infrastructure imposes on me, the better.  Finding a balance between those 
has always been a better idea than building the largest possible contraption.

>  Why should I need a special tool to see if my manifest is valid when the 
> laws of physics and the FAA make it feasible to use XSD?

Because the tool can operate in _your_ environment without inflicting side 
effects across the landscape.

> > Perhaps that's hubris to you, but acknowledging that the world is beyond
> > the precise control of schemas seems like a useful form of humility.
>
>Nobody's refuted the calendar set of examples.

Sure, it's useful.  Does it belong in a schema describing markup?  No, I 
don't think so.  I don't think it adds any more value than the current 
calendar disaster the WXS datatypes have already created with 
gHorribleKludge.  Calendaring is a tough set of problems.  I don't think 
maxOccurs and minOccurs in WXS does much to solve them.

>And yes, it's hubris to say "nobody ever works in a controlled
>environment" and "schema shouldn't be allowed such fine-grain control."

It's hubris to say that "because I want this goddamn feature, you're all 
going to have it too."  Finding the right balance of features keeps us off 
each other's property while still letting us talk across the fences.  Not 
that WXS is anywhere near balanced, of course.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• 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