Wow, much cleaner and the vocab is not as daunting as XSchema's. I still have to get a grasp of things like interleave and grammar but I just took a quick glance at the docs. Well if James Clark is working on this then it has got to be good. I like his keep it simple attitude. Am I correct in saying that without him we would just have DOM and no SAX? Well, whatever I'm all for working on a RELAX-NG implementation on top of libxml. Is there any compelling reason for using XSchema's? As for XEXPR I think we want to avoid doing functional work in XML. Thanks for the tip Harry. --J5 Harry George wrote: > As you study XSchema, please keep in mind that a lot of folks who > like the general idea of "something better than DTD's" think XSchema > is an abomination. Consider: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/ > > This combination of TREX and RELAX has the attention of some heavy > hitters in the XML parsing world (e.g., James Clark, Norm Walsh). > > Further if procedural/functional definition is needed, consider > XEXPR: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr/ > > > On Sun, 02 Jan 2000, John Palmieri wrote: > > Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 03:10:08 +0000 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: John Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: XML Schema > > > > I'm getting a little bit of a feel for XML Schema's. The > > documentation is > > littered with new terminology that takes a bit getting use to. The > > examples look > > straight forward. I think they are a better way to represent the > > shapes instead > > of DTD's. I will work on moving the widget.dtd to UrShape.schema > > once the C++ > > stuff James is doing hits the streets. About the validator - I'm > > going to fiddle > > around with this (note the fiddle part). Schema's is a whole other > > project and > > the specs are just way too complicated for us to be worrying about > > that. If > > anything, I might be able to squeeze something out that is tailored > > to our > > purposes (implements only the types and tags that we use). I > > suspect that libxml > > will include support for this in the future since it is very > > useful. One thing > > that gets me is the regular expressions. What notation of RE are > > they using? > > Perl uses different notation from python and lex. Are their libs > > for this > > already? Well I don't think that we are going to have to use > > restrictions or > > unions or any of the more complex parts of the spec so I think we > > can just ignore > > them. Well I'll create the schema file and see if I want to tackle > > validating it > > also. If we get past that we can have it automagicly create a tree > > to conform to > > our mini-DOM interface. Comments? > > > > -J5 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dia-list mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list > > > > > -- > Harry George > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > Dia-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list _______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
