W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: LC-16 ( LC-132 ): Allow arbitrary order with occurrence > 1

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:43:07 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20001012155635.038ad3e0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "Schema Comments" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, "Dan Rupe" <Dan_Rupe@go.com>
At 00/10/11 18:00 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>As it stands (wrt <all>) there is nothing in the XML Schema language
>whcih precludes implementing content models with absolutely standard
>FSM technology.  The change you propose would I believe break that.

The transformations in the HTML and P3P cases show how it can be
done with FSM. So what may be your problem is the blowup. But
please note that even with the current <all>, there are n**2 states
needed for n elements in an <all> group, so bringing an FSM to its
knees look quite easy, and trying to use absolutely standard FSM
technology therefore looks like a bad idea anyway. If 20 elements
doesn't do the job, 30 should do it.

Another question is whether the transform is made by the writer or the
machine. It's rather clear that machines are much better at that.

Another question is whether there is a requirement on XML Schema
to be implementable in particular technologies. I haven't yet
heard about any such requirement (i.e. requirement about a
particular technology, not about FSMs as such) yet for any
W3C technology.


Regards,   Martin.
Received on Sunday, 15 October 2000 17:51:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:48 GMT