> I'm not necessarily sold on the idea of generating a particular schema > language, or even of generating a schema at all, but I do know that > inventing our own is something we should be very wary of.
RelaxNG is a schema for *XML*, not for a *model*. This schema is only indirectly used to construct XML POSTs/PUTs, its primary use is for the client to understand the makeup of your data. In fact, "Elements" and "text nodes" aren't the correct conceptual way to describe a data model. In fact, consider that a RelaxNG schema would be outright inaccurate unless you label every single element in the schema as optional. You can update as few or as many attributes as you like in a PUT, and you may never be interested in including data for associations in your requests, yet you probably want to note all attributes and associations in a schema for the model. The way you label elements as optional in RelaxNG seems to be just "zeroOrMore". This terminology should be used only to describe the nature of associations between data, not just to make sure the flexible nature of REST is described technically accurately. So, I think RelaxNG is inappropriate for a simple, flexible description of a data model, and that we should keep the format as close to the current AR#to_xml format as possible. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
