MURATA Makoto wrote:
> Michael Fitzgerald wrote:
>
>
>>I was wondering what people think of these comments on closed schema
>>languages on XML-DEV.
>>
>
> I see some advantages in assertion-based schema languages such as Schematron.
> But I have always wondered why Rick Jelliffe opposes to other languages.
> What he calls "closed" is not a hangover from DBMS. Does he really think
> DocBook and TEI are such hangovers? "Closed" content models are sometimes
> (or often) required.
Schematron is the only language I know where "everything which is not
forbidden is allowed", the main principle of the other languages being
rather that "everything which is not allowed is forbidden" which, by
itself, is "closed".
I think then that the opposition between assertion-based and
structure-based languages is only a partial explanation of a deepest
difference between Schematron and the other languages. Partial, because
it is possible to imagine assertion-based languages where "everything
which is not allowed is forbidden" but it would seem less natural to
define structure-based languages where "everything which is not
forbidden is allowed".
Eric
--
Rendez-vous à Paris pour le Forum XML.
http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
