Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 09:27 AM 2/17/2003 +0100, Martin Bravenboer wrote: >I think W3C XML Schema doesn't fit the requirements of a "byte code" of >XML metadata at all. Shouldn't a bytecode contain as few irrelevant >details as possible? Shoudn't a bytecode be easy to process? > >A bytecode for xml metadata should be powerful, minimal and simple: a >decent programmer should be able to write some code to process the >bytecode in just a few days with the right tools. I agree with Martin. And also, a byte code not have so many different ways of expressing the same things - this makes it much harder to process schemas. When I have written code to process W3C XML Schemas, the first thing I did was build a normalized internal format and give it an XML representation. In fact, the W3C XML Schema spec gives you hints about how to normalize a schema into schema components, and I think most schema processors do something analogous to this. But it shouldn't be so difficult.... Jonathan
|
