I may have missed something or may have implemented it inefficiently but I
had no problem implementing concur.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Tauber [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:51 PM
> To: TREX Discussion List
> Subject: RE: concur
>
>
> The main reason I haven't implemented it is that I've been
> ordering features
> according to the tutorial.
>
> Before I read James Clark's email, I hadn't thought I'd have
> any trouble
> implementing it. Now I'm getting worried :-)
>
> I'll try it over the next couple of days and report back.
>
> James
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:35 PM
> > To: TREX Discussion List
> > Subject: RE: concur
> >
> >
> > It seems that <concur> reaches the Plimsoll mark. If it's tough to
> > implement, e.g. if James Clark hasn't implemented it in his Java
> > implementation (is it called JTREX?), nor James Tauber in his Python
> > version, why not shelve it until 1.1? I mean, is it more
> > nontrivial than
> > urgent? If it has no analogue in, say, SGML, then it is
> innovative and
> > experimental. Would <concur> benefit only 20% of TREX users
> out of the
> > chute? If simplicity prevails over coolness in the first
> > version of TREX, we
> > could all just RELAX...oops...I mean we could let <concur>
> > find its way into
> > a more mature version of the language. Informally, I agree
> > that we (or jjc!)
> > should take it off the heat and put it in the fridge for a while.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Clark [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 7:48 PM
> > > To: TREX Discussion List
> > > Subject: concur
> > >
> > >
> > > How do people feel about the "concur" element? I'm having
> > some doubts
> > > about whether it's a good idea to include it.
> > >
> > > - It's probably the most experimental feature of TREX,
> and standards
> > > aren't the place for experiments. Almost everything else
> > in TREX has
> > > some analogue in at least one other spec.
> > >
> > > - We're trying to be minimalist: "concur" I think is on the
> > wrong side
> > > of the 80/20 divide.
> > >
> > > - It's quite tricky to implement (especially getting
> coherent error
> > > messages).
> > >
> > > - I think people will want to layer type assignment on
> top of TREX.
> > > It's hard to make type assignment work for concur.
> > >
> > > - Other schema languages don't have concur or anything like
> > it, so TREX
> > > patterns that use concur will be hard to translate into
> other schema
> > > langauges.
> > >
> > > - The most useful application of concur seems to me to be
> > exclusions;
> > > but it would be easy to add explicit support for exclusions (I'll
> > > address this in a subsequent message).
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
