Cart
|
[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
 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. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
