Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rick Jelliffe scripsit: > And it is the higher-level abstractions which the schema uses to model > things that give much of the value of language. Schematron has no notion of > type. XML Schemas has no equivalent to Schematron's pattern. To say > "equivalent" may confuse people that the equivalence is the same equivalence > as saying "C# is equivalent to Java" rather than "a C++ program is > equivalent to its binary compiled form": equivalence does not mean > equivalently useful or useable or congenial. Indeed, a better analogue might be "Schematron is to XML Schema as Prolog is to Java". -- John Cowan cowan@c... One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
|
