|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: syntax, model
> Dare Obasanjo wrote: >>And I'd rather have a spec written in prose than a schema any day of the week > Joe English wrote: > Having all three is best (formal spec, prose spec, and sample > instances), if they're all available. But I think I'd still > pick the formal spec if I were forced to choose just one. Now that I'm out of smartass mode (sorry Dare), I can speak to this. Where this bites is not so much for widely published and reviewed specs, thought that can happen. It's for the ad-hoc (non-pejorative) structures that businesses come up with to get something done. Often this is done with samples rather than schemas. XSD is relatively new technolgy on the ground, RNG is newer still. But you get samples usually I believe, because on the ground everyone is in a hurry to get something out the door and formal notation is a seen as a luxury despite the savings made in coding effort. At Propylon, we consider schemata a priority and budget the time to create them, but to counter that, we see a lot of pre-existing data that can only be spec'd via samples. It's quite possible that no one person actually knows the range and domain of the XML structure in question. Usually we ask for maximal and minimal samples and reverse engineer the schemas from those. Not unrelated, what does anyone think of using XSLT to specify a transformation between two XML structures? Bill de hÓra -- Technical Architect Propylon http://www.propylon.com
|
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








