• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:00:35 +0100

Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > For instance, despite many qualities, there are combinations that W3C
> > XML Schema cannot describe and/or constrain.
> 
> And that's no fault of the XML Schema language. 

Sure !
.../...
> To overload Schema languages with
> all this work is imho a mistake, since we risk confusion between
> constraints from the core structures of an XML-based data format and the
> (often tighter) constraints we wish to apply when using that data format
> in practical applications. Same goes for RDF of course.

Agreed. And that's why several specialized "schema" languages to
describe the structure, the types, the rules and the semantic (with a
framework to tie them together) would be quite good.

Eric

> Dan

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• References:
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by Date: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schemaambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by thread: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread