Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The point of my remark is to insure that MicroXSD will fulfil existing (simple) needs. Imo, validating popular formats (in their microXML variant) seems to be a mandatory requirement for MicroXSD (if we want it to be used). On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...> wrote: >> Could you please give me a small idea of the MicroXSD to validate SVG? >> > > Well SVG isn't written as MicroXML so there's no point. > > ---- > Stephen D Green > > > > On 17 December 2010 14:21, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@g...> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Stephen Green >> <stephengreenubl@g...> wrote: >>> Ignoring complexTypes and not attempting to be valid XSD, how about >>> just the following? >>> >>> <element name="schema"> >>> <element name="element"> >>> <attribute name="name" type="string"/> >>> <attribute name="type" type="string"> >>> <!-- enumerations = string integer decimal date --> >>> </attribute> >>> </element> >>> <element name="attribute"> >>> <attribute name="name" type="string"/> >>> <attribute name="type" type="string"> >>> <!-- enumerations = string integer decimal date --> >>> </attribute> >>> </element> >>> </element> >>> >>> I think it is valid MicoXML, isn't it, and in the spirit of MicroXML >>> - easy to parse >>> - easy even to execute in MicroXML parsers if need be >>> >>> Or adding a little more and it could be valid XSD too (but that >>> might be going too far in the direction of XSD). >> >> Could you please give me a small idea of the MicroXSD to validate SVG? >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
