[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: ASN.1 is an XML Schema Language (Fix those lists!)andBinar
Alessandro Triglia wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >>Alessandro Triglia wrote: >>> Will XML Schema cease to be a true "XML schema language" as soon as (and >>> if) the W3C standardizes a schema-dependent alternative binary >>> representation for XML (assuming they do so)? Certainly not. >> >> Would you care to expose why you are so certain? > > Would you say that the nature of XML Schema would change if a W3C BiM-alike > were introduced, to the point that XML Schema could no longer be > appropriately called an "XML schema language" and would need a name change? I don't know if it'd need a name change, but yes it would change its nature, at least slightly, and shift the balance of the XML world (also at least slightly). > Would XML Schema lose its ability to describe and constrain XML documents? Obviously not. > Something would change, I agree. One of the things that would change is the > way some people would look at the language (in some cases, schemas would be > used to always generate binary encodings rather than XML). Some people > would begin to consider XML Schema "syntax-agnostic" at that point. Others > would not. Precisely. And that is *very* different from the way in which (many) people see a schema today. > Again, one could argue that this is the present, not just a possible future. It's been technically feasible (and done) for quite a few years now, but the curve isn't at the point at which I'd say it's the present. Not quite just yet, though it ain't so far. > The BiM and other schema-based binary representations can be regarded - > using ASN.1 terminology - as "encodings of abstract data types defined in > XML Schema", XML 1.0 being another possible encoding. This concept may seem > strange to people used to think in terms of "syntax", but makes a lot of > sense to other people. Well I must say that despite some extensive work in the area, it still sounds at least a bit strange to me, especially the "XML 1.1 being another possible encoding" part ;) There's a chasm to bridge here, and bridging it should yield some interesting results I'd think. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|