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

Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve it

• To: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rve its "X".)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 15:23:42 -0500
• Cc: "'Mike Champion'" <mc@x...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <575CBD83AE7DD411A23500B0D049C2F9C076F0@SRVSOCRATE>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:


> The question remains whether AFs can provide all the
> flexibility we need to support any kind of schema evolution. The situation
> in which some legacy code needs <firstname> first, then <lastname>, and a
> new document in which those elements are in reverse order cannot be handled
> by AFs, for example.


True, but it's only because of the rigidity of XML DTDs that this
problem even arises.  SGML DTDs and RELAX NG schemas and even W3C XML
Schemas, with limitations, can handle flexible order properly, taking
the burden off AF.


-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• References:
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits "X".)
• Previous by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't dese rveits "X".)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread