Re: [Springnet-developer] Upgrading to use the XML Schema instead of DTD

[Alexander T. <at...@bi...>]

list
set (although for sets it's less important).

Another thing is if you intend to offer an alternative parser something 
that would shorten the syntax would be welcome by many. For example
<set-value property="p1" value="..."/>
<set-list property="p1">
...
</set-list>
etc.

This is just as validatable as the existing one but unfortunately is even 
harder to adapt to xsd.

...... Original Message .......
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:25:23 +0000 Rod Johnson <ro...@in...> wrote:
>Let's imagine for a moment that in Spring 1.2 (Java) we offered an 
>_additional_ XML format (besides the old DTDs, which of course must work).
>
>So this has <object> rather than bean. Starting from scratch, is it 
>possible to resolve ambiguity by enforcing ordering rather than adding a 
>new tier of elements (which will be unacceptable to Java users from the 
>feedback I get). E.g.
>
>object := constructor-arg*, property*, lookup-method*
>
>Where would ambiguity need to be tackled?
>
>R
>
>Griffin Caprio wrote:
>
>>Rod,
>>
>>That is what I am gathering.  Is XSD adequate in this case?  
>>
>>I have done a lot of work with schemas, and I love them not only for what
>>they allow you to do over DTD's:
>>
>>-enumerations
>>-true type system
>>-extensibility
>>-regular expression validating
>>-etc...
>>
>>but also for what they don't allow you to do:
>>
>>- loose definition schema elements
>>- ambiguous elements & attributes
>>- loose definitions of content & content models.
>>
>>After saying, it seems as though people want the ability to loosely define
>>things like ordering & composition.  In this case, it seems as though XSD
>>doesn't buy us anything.
>>
>>However, one only has to look as far as Alexander Turcan's new custom
>>configuration parsing support to see the benefits of XSD's over DTD's.  
Yes
>>that means that some existing functionality will have to be upgraded & a 
few
>>new elements will have to be introduced to support grouping.  But I think
>>these are small prices to pay for what you get using XSD's.
>>
>>-Griffin 
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: spr...@li...
>>[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of Rod
>>Johnson
>>Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 3:59 AM
>>To: Aleksandar Seovic
>>Cc: 'Alexander Turcan'; 'Griffin Caprio'; 'Spring Developer'
>>Subject: Re: [Springnet-developer] Upgrading to use the XML Schema instead
>>of DTD
>>
>>Extra elements purely for this worry me. I would NOT be happy if tool
>>support was the only viable option: I'm certainly not prepared to go down
>>that route for Spring Java, and think that continuing with the DTD might 
be
>>a lesser evil.
>>
>>I don't have any great issue re constructor-arg/property/lookup method
>>ordering. That is logical anyway, corresponding to the order in which 
things
>>happen at runtime
>>
>>Lists obviously need free ordering.
>>
>>So it begs the question of whether XSD is adequate.
>>
>>R
>>