/ Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| I'm sorry to raise this "issue" back again but...
|
| The Atom Publishing Protocol defines SOAP bindings. This (in my mind)
| means there will be WSDL files over there. WSDL rely on XML Schema
| which in turn are limited to deterministic content models.
|
| Will the APP limit "Atom entries in SOAP envelopes" content model to
| fit WSDL/XML Schema constraints (actually, the APP will already need
| to limit Atom entries to have a mandatory atom:content I think)?
|
| Or should the Atom Syndication Format use deterministic content models
| to allow XML Schema, thus such uses as WSDL for Web Services?
|
| I'm personally in favor of the second one, as it also simplifies Atom
| parser/processor development.

I'm operating on about two-hours of sleep in the last 48 and
time-shifted across six time zones. I say that by way of explanation
in case what I'm about to say is more than usually stupid.

There is no 1:1 correspondence between schemas and documents. You can
have as many schemas as you want. If your application demands
additional constraints, such as determinism, you can define your own
schema that enforces them. Then your system will reject documents that
it can't handle.

I would strongly oppose any attempt to make the schema deterministic
without simultaneously making the normative prose deterimistic. I
didn't make the RELAX NG grammar impossible to translate literally
into W3C XML Schemas because I thought it would be fun, I attempted to
model the constraints in the normative prose as closely as possible
and that was the result.

I would prefer to leave things as they are because I think it makes it
easier for authors. But you can make a solid argument that determinism
is easier for authors too, so I wouldn't object to making Atom
deterministic in the normative prose, I suppose.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | There has never been a perfect
http://nwalsh.com/            | government, because men have passions;
                              | and if they did not have passions,
                              | there would be no need for
                              | government.-- Voltaire

Attachment: pgpAbnuAJpH07.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to