Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Very simple. Terseness is not a design goal. :-) I am no authority on this, but this is my understanding: OOP classes binds "elements and types" together as one (implicitly), whereas in XML Schema they are actually separated, so all elements have to have a type or datatype. Thus, you'd have to build up a type-hierarchy alongside an element one, depending on how you want to use it. > Hello! > > I was asked to give an example why I consider > the current XML schema syntax too complicated. > > So, suppose I want to describe pictures built of > circles, lines and rectangles. > > The first example is how I would expect > schema coding if I am used to OOP: > > <element name="pictureElement" abstract="true">...</element> > > <element name="picture"> > <element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="*" ref="pictureElement"/> > </element> > > <element name="circle" source="pictureElement"/>...</element> > > <element name="line" source="pictureElement"/>...</element> > > The second example is what I really > need to do using the current XML Schema draft: > > <type name="pictureElement">...</type> > > <element name="pictureElement" type="pictureElement"/> > > <element name="picture"> > <type> > <element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="*" ref="pictureElement"/> > </type> > </element> > > > <type name="circle" source="pictureElement">...</type> > > <element name="circle" type="circle" equivClass="pictureElement"/> > > <type name="line" source="pictureElement">...</type> > > <element name="line" type="line" equivClass="pictureElement"/> > > > The circle and line elements cannot just have > annonymous types since I may want to reuse > their structure. > > Now, my question is: Is anyone able to generate > a counter-example that justifies the > current schema overhead?
|
