[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)

• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• To: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@f...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)

Let me just throw one comment -- not sure how relevant it is --

you seem to be tying so many quite orthogonal (??) things together...???
which elements have global/local scope, which can be part of substitution
groups, which elements can be root of the document etc... I think it is
such decisions that make it lose some elegance (or human intuition..??)
-- i am not sure how important such elegance is..??

Also, I am very sure 1-unambiguity is quite unnecessary, I think that is
something which *should* be removed *soon* -- i think the discussion in
this list with the example of chess game
((whitemove, blackmove)*, whitemove?) is another hint in that
direction..??

regards - murali.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mark Feblowitz wrote:

>
> Yes -
>
> You can consolidate an entire vocabulary of different doc types into a
> single Schema Definition file. Very convenient for distribution of related
> schema definitions. The down-sides have already been mentioned.
>
> Now, will we ever get to (or need to get to) a point where we can have an
> instance file with multiple roots?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> To: vdv@d...; xml-dev@l...
> Sent: 6/21/01 9:45 AM
> Subject: RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
>
> That would say under XML Schema, a document can
> be rootless in the classical sense.  It is more
> like VRML, which having been designed from the
> beginning to be object-oriented, has no document
> root, simply a comment that must be included
> at the head of the file.  XML Schema in that
> sense has been oriented toward object design.
>
> Is this the case, that by having multiple
> global elements, we can design a schema
> with multiple document roots, or perhaps
> simply, multiple trees?
>
> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...]
>
> > In such a case, you
> > could deduce that <a> is the root element, even if it is not
> explicitly
> > marked as such. However, it may be the case that other elements, <x>,
> > <y> and <z> could also be defined with the same content model as <a>,
> > and therefore there are 4 possible root elements for a schema valid
> > document. Is this the case?
>
> Yes, all you have to do is to define these 4 elements as global.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...
>

• References:
  • RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
    • From: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Next by Date: RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Previous by thread: Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Next by thread: RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread