R: Number of active public XML schemas
> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Ronald Bourret [SMTP:rpbourret@r...] > Inviato: martedì 2 novembre 2004 7.06 > A: 'xml-dev' > Oggetto: Re: Number of active public XML schemas > > Michael Kay wrote: > >>Or because they [DTDs] are easier to understand, >> >> I have yet to see a DTD of more than trivial size that is not totally >> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash enough to make a one line >> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter entities and conditional >> sections. >From personal experience, I'd have to say that complex DTDs are >slightly more penetrable than XSDs. As a user, I'm usually just trying >to find out one or two things and I can do this by chasing entities >through the DTD with a text editor. I give up completely when faced with >a complex XSD document. (And in neither case can I get an overall picture.) >Which raises an interesting question: Should there be a non-XML syntax >for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been an article of >faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if for no other >reason than not having to write another parser. But one does have to >wonder... I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML: seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a "self-describing" language syntax avoids the users from learning a new one and allows to leverage many existing applications derived from the original spec (in this case, XML spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically generate brand new schemas through XSL transformations. Stefano
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