Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Re: Language Theorie concerning XML Schema (heavy,atleast
 Paul Downey wrote: > I think there already is an implicit databinder's profile out there, > in the > form of whatever nugget of schema is widely implemented consistently by > vendors. Trouble is that it isn't clear to the average publisher of > a schema which bits are core and which are esoteric. I expect there will be more information on the net if user get frustrated and start to blame the vendors. > I'm, personally, fairly open to a profile, but maybe improved test cases > or clarifications of the spec itself could be sufficient. I don't know. I think there is a basic operational problem in XML Schemas: it is designed with a kind of "dynamic discovery" model. So when you find the root element, you start looking for the schema that matches that namespace, if there is @xsi:type you don't look at the element name you look at the type name, and you look up the type names when you need them and don't signal an error if they are found and not needed, and type attribution is performed in the context of the current namespace-branch: top-down. This notional processing model is very consistent, but schema-compiling or schema-using toolkits prefer/require that the schema is known, fixed, closed (i.e. no wildcards) and complete. Now I am not saying that a tricky schema-compiler could not have tricks to cope: for example, generating extra tables to handle wildcards or more complex dispatching rules that cope with @xsi:type. But it seems to me that the dynamic discovery model for XML Schemas may be the nub of the problems. Are implementers voting with their code, that it isn't worth their time to implement parts that they don't want their users to use? > However in my day job i'm getting fairly frustrated as more or less > each and every new schema i'm faced with seems to lead to yet another > learning experience followed my having to deliver bad news to customers > /i'm afraid your schema is being rejected by toolkit *bah*, maybe you > might > like to simplify it if you want to reach a wide market? Care to name the particular issues? Non-specific comments won't have much traction with vendors or standards-makers. The XQuery folk should be very concerned too: if XML Schemas gets a name for being a sure way to guarantee non-interoperability in cross-vendor XML Systems, XQuery toolkits will be tarred with the same brush. Cheers Rick Jelliffe 
|
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
|
|||||||||
