[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
I think yes we agree. Then would you also agree we are back to the problem of what a namespace signifies? That is, if we must live with the XML Schema as not having context-aware contraints, in many cases dereferencing the namespace URI/URL must return information (eg, a RDDL) that enables the interpreter of the document to locate all of the constraints explicitly defined by the sender as needed for interpretation? In that case, I still prefer the separation to enable the receiver to toss rules not needed if not needed. That is something similar to an old old issue of who gets to decide what a document means or renders as: the author or the reader. Definitely hemeneutics. Get out the Wittgenstein. ;-) Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Bob Kline [mailto:bkline@r...] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:52 AM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas? On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Keeping up multiple documents to control a single instance is a > cost, no doubt, but spreading a single ineffective control across > multiple processes with different objectives is also costly. > Again, the case must be made for consensus and that is harder than > to rule by fiat. The problem is that when one attempts the monolith > it is likely that acceptance and implementation may be sparser than > if only the simplest and easily recognized agreements are made (this > is Berners-Lee minimal victory approach). We are largely in agreement, it seems to me. You recognize that in some cases (our project would be an example, we believe) the "monolithic" approach is most appropriate. I agree that for other projects layering of constraint specifications is called for. Unfortunately, even for those cases, if W3C's schema mechanism is adopted for the core agreement, the boundaries between the layers are driven not by the requirements of the project (it may well be that "element E can only contain children C when E is part of parent P" is one of the core components universally agreed upon for a given document type), nor by distinctions between simplicity and complexity (it would be amusing to see an attempt to demonstrate that W3C's schema spec supports only "simple" constraints), but by the decision to omit support for the common requirement of context-aware content models. -- Bob Kline mailto:bkline@r... http://www.rksystems.com
|
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
|