[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Can XML Schemas Support Document Systems (WAS RE: ZDNetSchemaarticle
"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" wrote: > > I invite people to show that the requirement for determinism > (i.e. for LL(1) grammars) can be dropped without hurting anybody, > because then maybe we can get consensus on dropping it in some > future version. Yes, that's why it's interesting to follow initiatives from informal groups without much legacy to protect. I hope we can define ways to integrate these initiatives in the overall picture, technically first (though a modular structure that lets people choose the schema language they wish to use) and later on by eventually integrating some of their features in standards. I also think that there might be other ways to to introduce determinism if required by learning from the experience of XSLT. A schema validation is nothing but a transformation that transforms instance documents into a validation report and/or a PSVI. It should then be possible to solve un-derterminism (i.e. to make sure the validation report and/or PSVI are producing a deterministic result) by defining overrideable priorities ala XSLT. > But interpreting it as an innovation imposed on the document > community by dataheads is just wrong: if the non-determinism > rule is bad for document processing, it's a self-inflicted wound. Yes, I get your point! The fact I have no SGML background and have taken for granted that I could work without DTD is probably a reason why I those constrains do not look "natural" for me. What I meant is that the consequences of non determinism are more important for data processing (you don't want to take the risk of an error of interpretation of a field in an invoice) than for documents. > >For example, you can't define a simple and flexible vocabulary where a > >document would have a title, an optional description and any number of > >paragraphs without imposing a relative order to the different elements. > > Huh? It's complicated, but it's doable. > > (p*, ((title, p*, desc?) | (desc, p*, title)), p*) I should have added more elements ;) ... Thanks for your answer. Eric > > -Michael Sperberg-McQueen > speaking only for himself > -- See you in Hong Kong for www10: http://www.www10.org/program/w10-half-tut.shtml#ta5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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
|