RE: Strange construction in XForms schema

Hi Eric,

Yes, I was faintly aware of these discussions, but I couldn't find a
trace in the spec - I forgot the last sentence: "What am I missing?"...

The information about who is going to understand it is definitely very,
very valuable. But it's only one half of the equation. The other half
is: who is going to need it. There, I'm sure, XForms is not alone.

I'm not going to re-hash this discussion here, the only thing that is
obvious to me is: it is not obvious how to trade performance vs. feature
in this case.

Josef

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:53 PM
> To: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Strange construction in XForms schema
> 
> 
> Josef Dietl wrote:
> .../...
> 
> > 
> > You are right, effectively we are building something that wasn't
> > possible if "written out" - but as so often in computer 
> sciences, one
> > level of indirection solves every problem.
> 
> 
> I wish this was true with W3C XML Schema :=( ...
> 
> The restrictions of use with xs:all have been discussed at 
> length before 
> the specification went to Recommendation and they are here because of 
> potential problems with the implementation of schema validators as 
> finite state machines that you won't workaround by embedding a xs:all 
> within a xs:group.
> 
> Whether documented or not in the Recommendation, doing so 
> probably means 
> that 50% of the schema validators will blow up trying to 
> validate some 
> of the combinations you expect to allow by the schema.
> 
> Eric
> 
>  
> > Josef
> 
> -- 
> Rendez-vous à Paris pour une visite guidee de la nebuleuse XML.
>                                            
http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 09:14:11 UTC