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

RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar

• To: 'Rick Jelliffe' <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:28:04 -0500

As I recall, it did in cases where the declaration was 
for a specific set of systems of known quantities and 
types.  15 years ago, that was a lot more probable than 
today.   We tend to forget in this era of homogenization 
of hardware and a vague notion that all systems are on 
the network and are open what the situation was in the 
time that SGML was being designed.  Systems tended to 
be uniquely connected, realistically closed, and had a 
lifecycle that was longer given the expense to replace 
it.  Most of the applications were batch.  As all of 
that changed, the simplifications that are XML made 
sense.

What I don't remember is if anyone except the markup 
wonks actually looked at the capacities.  I remember 
using them for example in cases where nesting really 
did matter.

len


From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...]

Also, it is probably wrong-headed, if it supposes that schemas act to
determine or checkthe capacity of a system. Having maxOccurs="4294967296" 
will not guarantee that your system will support 4294967296 occurrences.
(SGML allowed a matching of document quantitie with system capacity,
but I don't know whether it was actually much use.)

• Prev by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by Date: RSS Question
• Previous by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Next by thread: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread