• To: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@d...>,"Martin Bravenboer" <martin@m...>
• Subject: RE: BOXED XML (was RE: Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
• From: "Don Box" <dbox@m...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:08:21 -0800
• Cc: "Sean McGrath" <sean.mcgrath@p...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcLWj5colX67SbUBTXOax7swIwgkuwADx8Jg
• Thread-topic: BOXED XML (was RE: Re: Remembering the original XML vision)

I think people are taking the analogy a little too seriously...

DB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie
[mailto:jonathan.robie@d...]
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:19 AM
> To: Martin Bravenboer; Don Box
> Cc: Sean McGrath; xml-dev@l...
> 
> 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

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: How to redesign W3C XML Schema (Was: Remembering the original XML vision)
• Next by Date: Re: RelaxNG problem about section 7.4. Restrictions on interleave
• Previous by thread: OASIS TC Call For Participation: Education XML TC
• Next by thread: Safari and XSLT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread