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

Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• From: Fredrik Lindgren <fredrik.lindgren@c...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:12:08 +0100
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05573C05@r...> <3C9EEF2D.5040103@s...> <3C9FA0DE.3050904@c...> <3CA0206A.4090206@s...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1

The particular RELAX NG schema used could be designed to be 
deterministic. In that case the deserialization would be deterministic 
as well. I agree that the ability to have a non deterministic content 
models raises some interesting questions for tool developers.

Personally I think it would be interesting to have some kind of late 
binding for non deterministic models. Behind the scenes the 
implementation could support accessing the deserialized object structure 
for any of the matching patterns.

I think that if the application requires a deterministic transfer you 
should use a deterministic schema no matter which schema technology you 
choose. On the other hand, in some cases there may be a need to use 
application code to decide which matching pattern in a non deterministic 
model that should actually be used. In this case it is a pity that it 
should not be possible due to the tools not supporting non deterministic 
schemas.

/Fredrik Lindgren

Jiri Jirat wrote:

> As far as I have understood, it is the design of XML Schema,
> what should be better for this - because the Schema does not leave any 
> ambiguities for de-/serialization
> (this is the reason for the error message "non-deterministic content 
> model for type ...", I think)
> 
> And I believe the Schemas are designed well in this sense.
> 
> Jirka
> 
> 
> 
> Fredrik Lindgren wrote:
> 
>> Did they say that the W3C XML Schema specification was better for 
>> this, or was it just that the tool support for it is better when it 
>> comes to SOAP. Maybe we just need to implement some RELAX NG driven 
>> code generators and SOAP tools.
>>
>> What do the experts on the list say? Is there anything in the specs 
>> that should make people choose W3C XML Schema over RELAX NG for SOAP?  
>> Does the superiority of RELAX NG for documents mean that it is 
>> inferior for data?
>>
>> /Fredrik Lindgren
>>
>> Jiri Jirat wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to join the discussion again.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have talked to developers and what I have heard was
>>> that their is at least one thing, where XML Schemas/ta are
>>> better than Relax NG - when you do deserialization/serialization
>>> of objects into SOAP messages.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>>
>> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 
> 
> 

• References:
  • RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Jiri Jirat <Jiri.Jirat@s...>
  • Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Fredrik Lindgren <fredrik.lindgren@c...>
  • Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
    • From: Jiri Jirat <Jiri.Jirat@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RELAX NG Marketing
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces 'n Schemas
• Previous by thread: Re: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Next by thread: RE: Who can implement W3C XML Schema ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread