Re: 7.1 and 7.3 are as bad as XML Schema

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

I agree that there is scope for improvement in 7.1, but I don't agree with
you about 7.3.  I think the informal concept is very straightforward, and I
don't think the formalization is any harder than section 6.  I also think
the restriction is a very natural one.  What we need from a restriction is
the ability to uniquely assign key-types to attributes and elements.  Our
restriction uses the same basic idea as XML Schema's unique attribution
constraint: the assignment must be uniquely determined by the ancestry of
the element or attribute. It differs only in what is being assigned. This
constraint may well be lacking from a theoretical perspective, but I think
it will make very good sense to XML practioner

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murata Makoto" <mura034@attglobal.net>
To: <relax-ng@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:00 PM
Subject: 7.1 and 7.3 are as bad as XML Schema


> I would like to know who in the TC understands 7.1 and 7.3.  Although I
enjoyed
> reading sections 1 through 6 very much, these subsections really depressed
me.
> I have spent several hours, but I don't fully understand them yet.  I
would
> argue that nobody else in the world would ever understand them.  If some
members
> really understand these subsections, please speak up.
>
> These subsections are not only difficult.  They are unnecessarily
complicated.
> Frankly, I think that these subsections are as bad as XML Schema.  In my
opinion,
> it is fake generalization that makes these subsections so hard to
understand.
> By giving up unnecessary generalizations, we can make 7.1 and 7.3 away
simpler.
> I will write more about 7.1 in another mail and 7.3 in yet another mail.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Makoto
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: relax-ng-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>