Re: [Json] JSON Schema Language

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-05-08 08:46, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> If I have to work on a W3C Schema(*), I convert it to Relax-NG compact first.  True, I’ll lose some information, but as a net result I'll digest much more information out of the W3C Schema document than if I had directly looked at that.
> At the time when I was closer to the XML community, the hallway consensus was that W3C Schema was *designed* to sell more tools.

that's one way to look at it. given the complexity of XSD's model (which 
is a different discussion to have), it's hard to imagine how you could 
easily work with it just using a generic underlying model (of any kind: 
even the RNG compact syntax isn't easily revealing all relationships).

it's probably fair to say that any sufficiently complex domain model 
will require you to use tooling supporting it, instead of being able to 
just work with a source file of any format.

to me, the first discussion to have is how complex/powerful you want the 
domain model to be (XSD went completely overboard there). *after* that 
has been decided, and if it is of modest complexity, then it may make 
sense to consider a syntax based on a generic model so that people can 
directly read (and possibly even write) the source.

for old times sake, at https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/08/27/xscs.html is 
a specific XSD syntax we worked on to have a good "source file UX" for 
XSD. of course it never caught on because people used tools anyways, and 
this approach required specific code for reading and writing XSCS.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |