Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! R: Number of
> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Burak Emir [SMTP:Burak.Emir@e...] > Inviato: mercoledì 3 novembre 2004 11.25 > A: Chizzolini Stefano > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Oggetto: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: > Number of active public XML schemas > > Chizzolini Stefano wrote: > > >>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. > >One can of course endlessly discuss about syntax, but I have never >understood the obsessiveness of marking up descriptions of XML data in XML. > >Who needs to dynamically generate schemas? The whole point of schemas is >to be a widespread, well understood description of instances. > >If you generate a shining brandnew schema dynamically using X, you end >up with a description that did not exist before. Ergo, the risk is that >you do not have conforming documents. You are reasoning on a static-scenario base! Instead, I imagine (for example) the downstream work an agent could do depending on *that* dynamically-generated schema: it could create dynamic database schemas or even dynamically-conforming documents (but that's likely to be more suitable for a semantically-rich scenario as the semantic web). Anyway, I'm fascinated by the theoretical approach about language generation: I wouldn't throw away *just* the mathematical possibility to escalate an initial vocabulary through a pattern. Don't you care about it? ;) >Now one can dwell in discussion of hypothetical families of schemas, but >for all my experience tells me about modelling, if you manage to >understand what the common things are that make a bunch of schemas a >family, then you can anticipate the extensibility you need, which >removes completely the need for dynamic generation. > >What is a use case for dynamically generated schemas? >Why does one need to use XSL for it ? (See above) >Why couldn't one use non-XML syntax for it? Simply because of its lack of transformability. Regards, 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