[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: 'John Cowan' <cowan@m...>
  • Subject: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:54:42 -0500
  • Cc: xml-dev@l...

relational model example
Yes, I understand the complexity of using the content model 
for that, and in X3D, we have some very complicated content 
models as a result of that.   Seems to me the Schema approach 
is simpler to write.  On the other hand, a heavily parameterized 
DTD is also a really ugly thing (the X3D DTD approaches 
unreadability).  Should we have gotten rid of parameter entities 
in XML?  The DTD design gurus fought for them like tigers. 

That side trip aside, again:

1.  Not all Schemas are designed for generality.
2.  There are use cases for mix/max and some of those 
    can as easily be satisfied by the content model.  There 
    are also cases where min/max is easier.
3.  Relational model examples don't necessarily apply to 
    document examples and XML is for the most part, a document model.

None of those are showstoppers or "proves the rule" arguments. 
I don't think we'll discover one of those in this topic.  We'll 
get use cases and those will be particular, and we'll get generalizations 
and those won't always apply to particular cases.   It seems to 
me the min/max feature is yetAnotherToBeUsedSmartlyButAtOnesPeril 
features.

I am unsure if some are arguing here against min/max to support 
RELAX NG or to improve XML Schema.  That may not matter.

len


From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@m...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:

> I grant that in more cases than not, leaving the max 
> occurrences infinite works, but wasn't the lack of 
> being able to model a finite set one of the precise 
> reasons for critiqueing DTD modeling?

It might have been an excuse, but not a reason:  m,n-bounded
repetition can definitely be done in DTDs, though it is
even more annoying than in RNG, where f,f,f,f?,f?,f?,f? is
legal for f{3,7} as it is not in DTDs, where you must
say f,f,f,(f,(f,(f,f?)?)?)?.

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.