Re: Streamlining the schema file format

Hi,

Piotras wrote:
>>You mean using externally defined database tables for Midgard classes.
>>It doesn't work in any case as long as we want to have things like
>>metadata and guids for Midgard objects.
> 
> I do not talk about if it works I wonder if we need this.

I haven't seen any real use cases, and in any case it wouldn't work with 
the current metadata and guid stuff. So I'm quite convinced that even if 
someone needs that feature, we still won't have it.

> I thought that xml schema is much more flexible and future feature.
> Not xml DTD.

You are right. XML Schema or something like Relax NG would probably be 
more flexible than DTD. I can quite easily convert the DTD into XML 
Schema, but that's a minor detail compared to the issue of what the 
schema file format really is or should be.

> As I wrote at the beginning. We have two mandatory node names.
> Other are optional and other than optional ones are ignored.

I know. It would still be nice if we had an exact definition of what 
elements and attributes are interpreted by the schema loader and how 
they work. The wiki page documentation is a lot nicer than I expected, 
but it still is partly incomplete and outdated, and the schema loading 
code is IMHO a major mess. I don't really mind what syntax is used to 
specify the schema file format as long as such a specification exists!

BR,

Jukka Zitting