- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:53:11 -0500
- To: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "',petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com'" <", petexmldev"@tech-know-ware.com>
Thank you for your note. Bryan Rasmussen wrote: > I think it would be more interesting to try to figure out a model for XSD > and Schematron to work together I think the Schematron model does indeed merit a serious look as the preferred solution. I am not yet as expert in it as I would like to be, though I do have a general sense of how it works. I personally have at least two concerns that I would want to address before committing to it as a solution: 1) Although most widely used schema validators are fairly slow, one can in fact implement the XML schema rules at quite high speed. My team is hoping to publish some work in that area in coming months, and I suspect that others in the industry are working in the same direction. I think it's important to the success of any technology we choose that it be able to meet the performance needs of our customers. I have a suspicion that Schematron, or at least the full Schematron language, may not be as optimizable as the rest of XML Schema. In any case, it's worth some quantitative study and some serious architectural analysis before making a decision. 2) One important use for XML Schema is in databinding. Indeed, the W3C has been asked by its user community to do some work on facilitating databinding based on Schemas. Though it would be premature for me to draw any conclusions, I can imagine reasons why databinding tools might want to be aware of co-constraints, and in particular of the relationship between those constraints and the particles in content models. Maybe or maybe not that requirement exists and maybe or maybe not Schematron is a good basis for meeting it. That said, I have some intuition that a co-constraint system tied a bit more tightly to the existing schema grammars might facilitate databinding. As I say, there's a lot to like about Schematron. If it's a good solution, I think we'll all be glad to support it. Right now our main problem is that the Schema WG has too much important work to do and too few people to do it. I think we're all hoping that co-constraints will get some attention in the coming year, but they are not at the moment on our list of committed deliverables. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 15:53:22 UTC