Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > I hope that we can find out during the Candidate Recommendation (or > possibly sooner) whether the size and scope of the XML Schema > specifications lead to a large number of less-than-completely-interoperable > functionality subsets. The problem is that you cannot just take a subset: concepts are overlapping, but you cannot take out one completely without needing some additions elsewhere. For example, you have the content-type that can be empty, which seems equivalent to an empty type definiton. But you cannot remove the content-type completely because you cannot express mixed content in the <type> definition. There was a nice suggestion on the schema-comments list of introducing <pcdata> inside <type>, removing the need of the content-type, but I did not find any senseful response on the list... > I'm hoping that XML Schemas prove simple and efficient to implement, but > (based on my readings of the latest drafts), I can't say I'm optimistic. Implementing XML Schema is not really fum: You do more consitency checks like "what, if content-type is empty and the type definition not? Throw an error? What is the default for content type?" than senseful implementation. Best regards Stefan -- Stefan Haustein University of Dortmund Computer Science VIII www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de
|
