[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Rick Jelliffe quotable quote on the purpose of schemas
Klotz, Leigh said: > This is much the approach we took with XForms. Here's an example from the XForms spec, to be more concrete: <xforms:bind nodeset="/my:payment/my:number" relevant="/my:payment/@method = 'cc'" required="true()" type="my:ccnumber"/> > An initial prototype instance provides the structure, though it is > application-specific and not generic to all possible classes of > documents. We augment this system with the XSD type system and > constraints; XPath location paths bind the constraints and XSD types to > the nodes. Additionally we [1] profiled XML Schema, using only > simpleTypes and no structures, and called the resulting system "XForms > Basic" [2], so an XSD can define type libraries to be associated with > nodes via XPath location paths. So, XForms ditched the grammars from XSD, used paths instead, and kept the datatypes. So I'm *not* the only one who sees the practicality of this :-) I think the fact that path APIs are ubiquitous, easily just as widely available as XSD APIs...probably more available is another attractive point here: the grammar layer can be swapped out for a path-based layer in many cases (certainly not saying all...swings and roundabouts) without disruption. > With the addition of full structural validation for XML Schema (i.e., > support for Part 1 Structures), it's full XForms 1.0. I don't see any reference to Part 1 in http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice12.html#conform-levels-full Any pointers to clarify what you mean? Cheers Rick
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|