- 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