Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Ronald Bourret [SMTP:rpbourret@r...] > Inviato: martedì 2 novembre 2004 7.06 > A: 'xml-dev' > Oggetto: Re: Number of active public XML schemas > > Michael Kay wrote: > >>Or because they [DTDs] are easier to understand, >> >> I have yet to see a DTD of more than trivial size that is not totally >> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash enough to make a one line >> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter entities and conditional >> sections. >From personal experience, I'd have to say that complex DTDs are >slightly more penetrable than XSDs. As a user, I'm usually just trying >to find out one or two things and I can do this by chasing entities >through the DTD with a text editor. I give up completely when faced with >a complex XSD document. (And in neither case can I get an overall picture.) >Which raises an interesting question: Should there be a non-XML syntax >for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been an article of >faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if for no other >reason than not having to write another parser. But one does have to >wonder... I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML: seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a "self-describing" language syntax avoids the users from learning a new one and allows to leverage many existing applications derived from the original spec (in this case, XML spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically generate brand new schemas through XSL transformations. Stefano
|
