[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Exp
Xsi:nil is not central to data apps. It is an ugly wart... Best regards Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@g...] > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:07 PM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: > Schema Experience Workshop minutes online) > > On 7/14/05, Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...> wrote: > > Paul Downey wrote: > > > > > Agreed, but so are processing instructions and DTDs, and > yet some domains > > > choose to exclude them, e.g.: > > > > > > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08 > > > -24.html#Disallowed_Constructs > > > > > > > And I'm on record as saying that's a major mistake. But again you're > > confusing different issues. restricting the syntactic > constructs allowed > > in a particular application has nothing to do with what > constraints a > > schema language can express on the structures of documents. > > > > I think this is all just proving Paul Downney's point that "my 20 is > your 80" and vice versa. Mixed content, entites, PIs, etc. are > undeniably central to document apps, but an annoyance to data-centric > apps. Types, the PSVI, and nil are central to data apps but an > annoyance to pure document folks. But that doesn't mean we can all > just go our separate ways: there is a huge middle ground (e.g. most > InfoPath documents) that have features from both worlds, because real > business documents have both semi-structured text and strongly typed > data in them. > > That's why I agree that any profiles or XML or XSD that are optimized > for one domain's requirements should not be standardized by an > infrastructure-level organization such as W3C. Better to have > processors optimized for some domain-specific profile but still > capable of gracefully (if not efficiently or conveniently) handling > anything corresponding to the core specs. > > The implicit SOAP profile with no DTDs or PIs is an interesting case > ... I believe that's a reasonable profile for that rather broad domain > given the truly nasty security and efficiency implications of entity > expansion, but obviously it's something about which reasonable people > disagree. > > Rick presented some very interesting ideas for how XSD could be > modularized. I (personally, day job hat is in the closet) really > think these should be seriously explored, but I don't think a > standards organization is the place to explore them. Academia? > Vertical industry associations? Ad-hoc efforts of the sort that > created SAX? *If* some really clean and compelling results can be > demonstrated, then it would be time to try to get them standardized in > "XSD 2.0" or whatever. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >
|
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
|