Re: [relax-ng] ooRelaxNG (was: Limitation ...)

["MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 04:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> > In o-o programming languages, we have variables, classes, and objects.  
> 
> To be sure, but in XML (which is data, not code) we have no analogues
> of variables.  We have only class literals, where we say "Create an
> object of class foo with attributes bar and child objects baz".
> The RNG schema tells us whether this object, said to be of class foo,
> is or is not conformant to the constraints placed on foo-class objects.

It appears that we have completely different understanding.  I created 
my shorthand only to mimic a very simple subset of o-o programming languages.  
Thus, I want to directly represent variables.

My shorthand is not an extension of RELAX NG.  Rather, it is a simple schema 
language whose basic concepts are classes, instances, variables, and inheritance.  
My shorthand is not intended as a general-purpose schema language for XML; it  
can only handle objects (which are built on top of classes and variables).
Although my shorthand borrows many constructs of RELAX NG to represent data structures, 
it should not be considered as an extension of RELAX NG.  

I do not intend to create an extension of RELAX NG by incorporating classes.  
I think that classes and non-terminals (names of patterns)  belong to completely 
different meta models, and cannot easily co-exist in a schema language.

-- 
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>