Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > I also wonder, though, if some simpler mechanism for providing such limited > translation facilities might be sensible. The information being handled > isn't wildly complex (though Rick's note about attributes and adjectives is > intriguing), and I'm not sure that using the full power of Schemas is the > most efficient or the most effective way to go about this small project. Well, personally, I'd prefer if XML Schemas was split into * an infoset annotation language which traverses down the DOM and adds architectural attributes (e.g. xsi:type attributes) and default values like a mini-XSLT and which looks after all type-determination and infoset issues, and * a RELAX-sized, non-infoset-contributing schema validation language, (and * non-infoset-contributing Schematron, which could then validate using the xsi:type etc attributes.) I think a mini-XSL (which would just add attributes) would be pretty useful and lite-weight. I hope XML-DEV people can look at some of the XML Schema drafts now out at W3C: of course it is probably more useful to find logical errors and gaps rather than commenting on the feature set or the paradigm-- still the proof of the pudding for XML schemas will be taking it on the road for serious testing (oops, mixed metaphor) and not armchair analysis. Rick Jelliffe *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
