Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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?
Best regards
Stefan
--
Stefan Haustein
University of Dortmund
Computer Science VIII
www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de
--
Stefan Haustein
University of Dortmund
Computer Science VIII
www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de
|
