|
I agree that schemas are understandable, as any programming language is, but they are by no means simple. Consider the following example,
<complexType name="SomeName">
<complexContent>
<extension base="SomeBase">
<sequence>
elements
</sequence>
attributes
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
1) Why do we need to specify that SomeName is a complex type? It was my experience that one barely ever uses the simple type. Why does W3C not make the complex type a default?
2) The same applies to complex content. W3C can make it a default.
3) Wy not make the sequence model group a default since it is used most often?
If all of these suggestions were implemented, the above example would be changed to
<type name="SomeName">
<extension base="SomeBase">
elements
attributes
</extension>
</type>
This would make more sense and save 6 (!) lines of code. Or whould it be too difficult to make software that would validate it correctly?
|
Previous Message
