Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: Bryan Cooper <bryan.cooper@v...> > The >XML Schema:Structures draft seems too conservative in this area: if it >doesnt give substantial advantages over markup declarations I dont see >the point: a little nicer improvement to content models for database >support and an enormous increase in size. I am quite new to XML and initially got quite excited about the XML Schema proposal. However, reading this list there seem to be two views of what schemas are for and I am not sure whether a schema is what I need. On the one hand are people who do not like the totally different syntax used in a DTD and would like to replace it with a schema which uses the same syntax as the rest of an XML document but otherwise does the same as a DTD. On the other hand there are those who want to do things a DTD cannot, such as object inheritance (<archetype> and <refines>) or reintroduce the potentially useful but apparently tricky "&" connector. There is then the issue of backward compatibility between a schema and XML 1.0. Translating a schema based document to a DTD based one can be: possible, possible with loss of information, or just impossible. Some want one, while some want another. Is this a fair summary of the situation or have I got quite the wrong end of the stick? Philip Nye xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
