- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:02:58 -0400
- To: Philippe Poulard <Philippe.Poulard@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: "'Crni Gorac'" <cgorac@gmail.com>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Thank you for forwarding this. I've only had the opportunity to take a
quick look, but it looks like an interesting piece of work. It's clear
that finding appropriate means of capturing co-constraints will be very
valuable to the XML community. I would be curious for your thoughts on
the relationship between the desire for powerful constraint checking that
the issues raised in the TAG finding, "The Rule of Least Power" [1]. It
seems to me that, to the extent practical, it is desirable to focus on
constraint languages that are simple and declarative, as I think that such
approaches will greatly facilitate the development of tools for
databinding, user interface creation, etc. I don't think I've reviewed
your proposal in enough detail to have an informed opinion, but a quick
skim suggested that it points toward using somewhat more "powerful"
languages. These presumably have the advantage that they can effectively
express more elaborate constraints, but sometimes at the cost of making it
difficult to easily discover that a particular constraint is in fact a
straightforward one. This is a tradeoff that the Schema WG has been
wrestling with, as there too, some members are inclined torward approaches
that are more powerful (in the sense of the finding), and some are willing
to leave behind more difficult use cases in favor of a solution that's
easier to optimize and easier to reason about. I'm curious whether you
have considered such tradeoffs. Thanks very much.
Noah
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Philippe Poulard <Philippe.Poulard@sophia.inria.fr>
05/15/2006 05:41 AM
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Crni Gorac'"
<cgorac@gmail.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: Re: specify element type depending of same element
attribute value?
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> And, adding to Mike's answer, the schema workgroup is devoting a lot of
> effort to choosing the right features for Schema 1.1 that would allow
just
> such co-occurrence constraints to be expressed. Though I can't
officially
> commit anything, I would expect to see at least some initial proposals
in
> whatever is the next public working draft of the Schema 1.1
specification.
> Stay tuned.
>
hi,
I'm playing with an alternate schema technology that can build content
models dynamically, as shown in this example :
http://reflex.gforge.inria.fr/tutorial.html#N801359
Thus, co-occurrence constraints are easy to achieve with the Active
Schema Language :
http://disc.inria.fr/perso/philippe.poulard/xml/active-tags/active-schema/active-schema.html
Of course, this is still experimental, but it's worth seeing ; there are
lots of ideas that might interest the schema workgroup.
--
Cordialement,
///
(. .)
--------ooO--(_)--Ooo--------
| Philippe Poulard |
-----------------------------
http://reflex.gforge.inria.fr/
Have the RefleX !
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2006 20:03:17 UTC