Comments on: Application Builder behind-the-scenes http://dubinko.info/blog/2009/10/21/application-builder-behind-the-scenes/ From an XML geek, a reader, a writer, a connector, a man of the people (says keep hope alive) Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:18:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Martin http://dubinko.info/blog/2009/10/21/application-builder-behind-the-scenes/comment-page-1/#comment-4695 Martin Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:58:37 +0000 http://dubinko.info/blog/?p=680#comment-4695 Your comment form eats XML tags. First paragraph is supposed to say: Actually, that is possible in XML Schema. You need to make options and response the only two top-level types. I don’t remember the exact XML schema terminology, but basically only have options and response as root xs:elements and have all other elements only be included (and thus only reachable) within them. Your comment form eats XML tags.

First paragraph is supposed to say:

Actually, that is possible in XML Schema. You need to make options and response the only two top-level types. I don’t remember the exact XML schema terminology, but basically only have options and response as root xs:elements and have all other elements only be included (and thus only reachable) within them.

]]> By: Martin http://dubinko.info/blog/2009/10/21/application-builder-behind-the-scenes/comment-page-1/#comment-4694 Martin Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:57:14 +0000 http://dubinko.info/blog/?p=680#comment-4694 > The start line indicates that, within this namespace, there are two > possible root elements, either or (not shown here). > An instance with a root of, say search:annotation is by definition not > valid. Try representing that in XML Schema. Actually, that is possible in XML Schema. You need to make and the only two top-level types. I don't remember the exact XML schema terminology, but basically only have and as root xs:elements and have all other elements only be included (and thus only reachable) within them. However this more or less proves your point - XML schema might support lots of things (actually way to many if you ask me), but in most cases it's so cumbersome and unintelligible that no one understands it. I still cannot remember how to do the namespace thing (target namespace, where to use prefixes) correctly. > The start line indicates that, within this namespace, there are two
> possible root elements, either or (not shown here).
> An instance with a root of, say search:annotation is by definition not
> valid. Try representing that in XML Schema.

Actually, that is possible in XML Schema. You need to make and the only two top-level types. I don’t remember the exact XML schema terminology, but basically only have and as root xs:elements and have all other elements only be included (and thus only reachable) within them.

However this more or less proves your point – XML schema might support lots of things (actually way to many if you ask me), but in most cases it’s so cumbersome and unintelligible that no one understands it. I still cannot remember how to do the namespace thing (target namespace, where to use prefixes) correctly.

]]>