Chizzolini Stefano wrote:

>
>	>Which raises an interesting question: Should there be a non-XML
>syntax 
>	>for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been an article of
>
>	>faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if for no other
>
>	>reason than not having to write another parser. But one does have
>to 
>	>wonder...
>
>I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML:
>seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a "self-describing" language
>syntax avoids the users from learning a new one and allows to leverage many
>existing applications derived from the original spec (in this case, XML
>spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically generate brand new
>schemas through XSL transformations.
>
>  
>
One can of course endlessly discuss about syntax, but I have never 
understood the obsessiveness of marking up descriptions of XML data in XML.

Who needs to dynamically generate schemas? The whole point of schemas is 
to be a widespread, well understood description of instances.

If you generate a shining brandnew schema dynamically using X, you end 
up with a description that did not exist before. Ergo, the risk is that 
you do not have conforming documents.

Now one can dwell in discussion of hypothetical families of schemas, but 
for all my experience tells me about modelling, if you manage to 
understand what the common things are that make a bunch of schemas a 
family, then you can anticipate the extensibility you need, which 
removes completely the need for dynamic generation.

What is a use case for dynamically generated schemas?
Why does one need to use XSL for it ?
Why couldn't one use non-XML syntax for it?

regards,
Burak Emir

http://lamp.epfl.ch/~buraq