[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: power uses of XML vs. simple uses of XML
Take it a piece at a time and it isn't terrible. HyTime was only terrible if you tried to pick it up without the help of a book explaining it such as deRose and Durand's book. Because it didn't become mainstream, and because the hypertext community suddenly expanded a millionfold forcing a devolution phase (one reason for devolution is a sudden explosion of members forcing conservation of resources), it hasn't been given that much attention by writers. Unless XML Schema has critical flaws, I expect that it will pick up more support once some good books are available, but not before. There is no *requirement* for XML parsers to be small. That is a goal. Because XML parsers must enable well-formed parsing and might enable validation, they can be small. After that we get into featuritis. Consider the well-formed parse as the minimum support, then start working on DOM, XSL, DTD, schemas, namespaces, Xn systems support, and the object can get pretty bloated. Being able to determine which features must be supported for a given transaction is a fundamental problem for requirements and proposal writers. Look at MSXML. It currently supports a lot of that list and XDR for schema support. I don't think we know what having support for all of XML schema will require. The question one might pose is if all of XML Schema should be supported in the same object with the rest of the list. Has anyone asked if the set of features in XML schema make sense for the majority of applications? The fact is, XML++ is no longer simple. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: Michel Rodriguez [mailto:mrodrigu@i...] On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > The value of schemas will increase dramatically if they are > widely adopted/employed (for example, if all XML parsers provided > a simple way to use schema validation). Doesn't this go against the requirement for XML parsers to be small? The more I read about schemas and the rest of the standards associated with XML and the more I think that HyTime wasn't so complicated after all! Seriously, what would be the impact of adding schema validation to a parser in terms of complexity, size and speed? *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
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
|