- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:23:36 -0600
- To: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
On Mar 14, 2011, at 4:25 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > ... > C. M. Sperberg-McQueen writes: > >> <flogging> >> >> Our implementation will keep track of what schema documents it has to >> handle, and what documents it has already handled, by means of sets >> called QUEUE and FINISHED, and it will keep track of what it's reading >> right now with a variable called CURRENT. For concreteness, we'll >> assume that these variables all use 'schema document designators', >> defined as follows. > > This and what follow closely parallel Algorithm O [1], which provides > some reciprocal encouragement that we are all on the same page here. > >> . . . >> </flogging> > > To repeat my previous point, I think this or something like it needs > to be available to our users, either in an appendix or a Note. > If what you want in the Note is procedural pseudo-code instead of algebraic manipulations, then the idea of the note is much less interesting to me. The procedural bias of the XSD spec has caused nothing but trouble and the sooner we break ourselves of the habit of thinking procedurally instead of declaratively, the better off our spec will be. At most, two or three procedural walk-throughs illustrating different algorithms for calculating the necessary result may be helpful as a way of demonstrating to the skeptical that the results are after all calculable. But -- not one algorithm, but several, to avoid conveying the idea that one way of doing it is normative or is preferable to the others. -- **************************************************************** * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC * http://www.blackmesatech.com * http://cmsmcq.com/mib * http://balisage.net ****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 17:24:07 UTC