• From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:13:49 +1100

Eric van der Vlist wrote:

> Looks like we are going towards 4 different types of XML "schema"
> languages to define:
>
> - The structure
> - The datatypes
> - The rules
> - The semantic.

This is very interesting - I wonder if we might be heading for another split
such as the one that saw XSL split into T and FO? The differences are
becoming more pronounced, and the term "schema language" is starting to lack
definition as a result.

Eric (or anyone else), how do you differentiate between rules and semantics?



--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc@a...
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Are we losing out because of grammars? (Re: Schema ambiguitydetection algorithm for RELAX (1/4))
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• Next by Date: Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
• 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