On Aug 16, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Julien Anguenot wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, I looked at this a couple of years ago and concluded that,
a reasonable amount of work, zope interfaces could support all of
XMLSchema, but not vice versa.
Sure, but if necessary we could add a 'zope' namespace for power users
who want to take advantage of all the zope.interface (schema) features
from XML but we need to be compliant with the standard XML Schema
specification so that it will not be compulsory to have any zope
knowledge to built zope compatible schemas from XML standard tools.
Right. However, I think (in fact, was convinced by a third party
years ago) that the use of such a namespace will likely make using
the XMLSchema in a automated schema editor as annoying as ZPT in
Dreamweaver: possible, but likely prohibitively annoying. If
roundtrips are desirable, users will be better served to constrain
themselves to the capabilities of XMLSchema.
BTW, the obvious following question to my email is "how are they
insufficient"? I did this two years ago, and sadly don't
details, so feel free to ignore me as without proof.
I don't want to ignore you on this :) If you got pointers on the work
you did at this time it would be really appreciated :)
No, that was three computers ago. Long discarded. :-/
So again, not intended to be throwing cold water, just
some use cases, such as making a system designed to be customized by
minimally-trained users (yours, AIUI), the advantages of
likely more important than its disadvantages.
The point is mainly to be able to support XForms and as well, as you
mentionned, being able to let the framework "users" (integrators for
instance) define their schemas with tool and a technology they know
Note, that after the XML schema is set on the interface it's
work and extend it as it was defined in "pure" Python so you get both
I did notice that, and that is cool.
Got time to help me on the implementation ? ;)
:-) Good question, but no, that's not in the cards right now.
Zope3-dev mailing list