Norman Walsh wrote:
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.
Won't that cause interoperability problems?
Well, actually, I misunderstood WSDL a bit: you're actually not forced
to use XML Schema in WSLD (would it be 1.0, 1.1 or 2.0), though I think
(I have no figure about that) XML Schema is the most widely supported
schema language in WSDL implementations, and providing no interop with
XML Schema might still cause interop problems.
I would strongly oppose any attempt to make the schema deterministic
without simultaneously making the normative prose deterimistic.
Sure!
I wasn't actually strictly speaking of schemas.
I would prefer to leave things as they are because I think it makes
it easier for authors.
I Agree, though many HTML pages which I've looked at the source has
their "HEAD" content in the form:
* TITLE
* META
* LINK
* STYLE or SCRIPT
* SCRIPT or STYLE
so a deterministic content model would be a pain I think...
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.
Hmm, I can't see any such argument...
--
Thomas Broyer
