[OFFTOPIC] Re: [XML-SIG] XML-SCHEMA
Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:43:14 +0200
Ken MacLeod wrote:
> Christian Tismer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
[a little about Schemas]
> I respect the functionality of XML Schema, but to claim its XML
> grammar as "more powerful and easy to read" is a big reach.
Sorry, it is more powerful than a DTD and easier to read.
Feel free to prove the opposite. I'm prepared well.
> Domain-specific syntaxes almost always beat out generic or interchange
> syntaxes for expressiveness and readability.
The one does not exclude the other. But it makes absolute
sense to express primitive and composite types using the
schema definitions as far as they fit. You can put on
top whatever else you need.
> That ranks up there with using a DOM interface to your application's
> data as one of the biggest misuses of XML.
What do you try to express by this?
I have never been arguing pro DOM. If you want to
know my opinions about DOM, please read Greg Stein's posts
of last year. Mine opinions are exactly the same, incidentally.
Instead of raising general claims I suggest to read the specs.
I you were in fact working with schemas (as I do since months)
you could not arrive at your conclusions.
point not taken until you show me your schemas - chris
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:email@example.com>
Applied Biometrics GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.com