- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:30:38 +0100
- To: "'Philippe Poulard'" <philippe.poulard@sophia.inria.fr>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "'wayne liu'" <waynix@gmail.com>, "'George Cristian Bina'" <george@oxygenxml.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> I wonder if this assertion mechanism will enforce the content > model to be those expected, Yes, it will. > or if it is a mechanism that > works like schematron, that is to say *after* applying the > content model ; Depends on whether you are using the term "content model" to include the assertions or not. an editor would propose to its user some > candidate elements for insertion and then refuse the one > selected thanks to the assertion ; not fair I think it would require a rather clever editor to take assertions into account when offering prompts to the user. But of course assisting authoring is only one use case for schemas. > > I'm convinced that it's much more efficient to act on the > content model directly ; I'm sorry, what is the "it" that is more efficient? > > Notice that mixing a declarative language with imperative > constructs is a concept already adopted by your peers : > if/then/else and for-each structures are part of XPath2 ; There's nothing remotely imperative about conditional expressions or mapping expressions, I think you have misunderstood the language semantics. Just because these constructs are dressed in a syntax that is familiar from procedural languages doesn't make them procedural. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 14:31:01 UTC