[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! R: Number of
> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Burak Emir [SMTP:Burak.Emir@e...] > Inviato: mercoledì 3 novembre 2004 11.25 > A: Chizzolini Stefano > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Oggetto: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: > Number of active public XML schemas > > Chizzolini Stefano wrote: > > >>Which raises an interesting question: Should there be a non-XML syntax > >>for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been an article of > >>faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if for no other > >>reason than not having to write another parser. But one does have to > wonder... >> >>I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML: >>seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a "self-describing" language >>syntax avoids the users from learning a new one and allows to leverage many >>existing applications derived from the original spec (in this case, XML >>spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically generate brand new >>schemas through XSL transformations. > >One can of course endlessly discuss about syntax, but I have never >understood the obsessiveness of marking up descriptions of XML data in XML. > >Who needs to dynamically generate schemas? The whole point of schemas is >to be a widespread, well understood description of instances. > >If you generate a shining brandnew schema dynamically using X, you end >up with a description that did not exist before. Ergo, the risk is that >you do not have conforming documents. You are reasoning on a static-scenario base! Instead, I imagine (for example) the downstream work an agent could do depending on *that* dynamically-generated schema: it could create dynamic database schemas or even dynamically-conforming documents (but that's likely to be more suitable for a semantically-rich scenario as the semantic web). Anyway, I'm fascinated by the theoretical approach about language generation: I wouldn't throw away *just* the mathematical possibility to escalate an initial vocabulary through a pattern. Don't you care about it? ;) >Now one can dwell in discussion of hypothetical families of schemas, but >for all my experience tells me about modelling, if you manage to >understand what the common things are that make a bunch of schemas a >family, then you can anticipate the extensibility you need, which >removes completely the need for dynamic generation. > >What is a use case for dynamically generated schemas? >Why does one need to use XSL for it ? (See above) >Why couldn't one use non-XML syntax for it? Simply because of its lack of transformability. Regards, Stefano
|
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
|