Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: SchemaExp
Pete Cordell wrote: > The low level XML parser would have to accept mixed, and the binding logic > would need to handle unexpected mixed content gracefully in the same way > that the whole system might have to handle <<<<< or any other number of > illegal XML syntax gracefully. But I don't think that means that an domain > specific specification language must be able to specify that some construct > is mixed. You're mixing syntax and semantics. Handling <<<<< properly is a syntax issue. It is a well-formedness error. Handling <p>This is <strong>very</strong> important</p> when the schema says mixed content is not allowed is a very different issue that requires a different response. regardless, mixed content is not as uncommon or unexpected as many people think. It is not an accident. It is not bad form. It is not something to be avoided. It is the very natural way to express many extremely common constructs when modeling information, including so-called data-oriented applications (as if any information content were not data). Excluding mixed content from a schema language is like excluding a reverse from a car's transmission. 99% of the time you might drive in forward mode, but not having the reverse gear when you need it will leave your car (or application) stuck in a dead end it can't be extricated from without a tow truck. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
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