Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
> 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.
Sure, but I find that a common syntax does help looking at the
similarities and differences of the existing rule based and pattern
based languages.
I agree that the correspondence is probably one way (a pattern may be
written as a rule but a rule cannot always be written as a pattern).
On the other hand, rule that can be expressed as patterns use to be
simpler to write and understand as patterns than as rules.
I strongly believe, then, that a pattern based language allowing to
define additional local rules would be a good compromise.
And that a common syntax does help top get the picture...
Eric
--
Rendez-vous à Paris pour net2001.
http://www.mynet2001.net/pgmonline2001/it2.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
