[dsdl-discuss] Re: Namespace Routing Language

In this mail, I focus on newly-introduced features.

First, I love the way concurrent validation, <attach/>, and <unwrap/>
are combined to provide depth-interleaving and "cover". The attribute
"cover" in MNS was specified for a parent <validate>, while <attach/>
(and <unwrap/>) is specified for a child <validate>. I think that this
change simplifies the formal semantics and implementation significantly.

Second, I am not sure if mode inheritance is required. At least, the
motivating example in Section 13 is not persuasive: we can get rid of
the mode "common". I am also confused by the precedence rule (quoted
below).

>1. a non-wildcard rule in x
>2. a non-wildcard rule in y
>3. a wildcard rule in x
>4. a wildcard rule in y

Third, I am not sure if namespace wildcards are powerful
enough. Since we cannot specify <choice> of multiple namespaces,
I think that schema authors sometimes have to create more than one
<namespace> having the same content.

Fourth, I do not like the keyword "attach". How about "super", "parent",
or "parentSegment"?

Fifth, as Rick proposed, some syntax sugar for <attach/> and <unwrap/>
would be useful. Although I do like the idea of specifying <attach/>
or <unwrap/> at a child <namespace> (rather than a parent <namespace>),
I think that such child <namespace>s make NRL schemas longer and less
readable.

Sixth, I have some editorial comments. Sections and element sections
should be clearly defined before they appear in the spec/tutorial. The
second para of Section 12 should use some special font for the tokens
"attribute" and "elements".

More about omitted features and formal semantics tomorrow.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)