No Language Is Simple That Begins With...
... something like the following:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<blah xmlns="http://www.blahblahframework.org/schema/blahblahblah"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.blahblahframework.org/schema/blahblahblah
http://www.blahblahframework.org/schema/blahblah/blahblah-blahblahblah-2.0.xsd">
<!-- YOUR CODE HERE -->
</blah>
Re: No Language Is Simple That Begins With...
Re: No Language Is Simple That Begins With...
As soon as an XML document enters into the realm of "this document is expected to be processed with my little program on http://blahblahframework.org, and no program else," the attached schema information become superfluous and pure baggage. The little program on http://blahblahframework.org surely knows where the schema is, right?
Re: No Language Is Simple That Begins With...
Re: No Language Is Simple That Begins With...
I think we understand each others point perfectly well. I sympathize with your "the schema should not be an attribute on an instance, it should be a processing instruction" stand.
My gripe is more along the lines "the XML editor/IDE and the actual program that processes the instance should be able to infer the schema in the scenario at hand."
There are more situations where XML makes who creates the document do extra work, e.g., the mandatory end tag, quotes around attributes, etc., things even HTML allows. All small things, but they adds up to build frustrations for the user who actually has to hand write the XML document.
I'm more and more of the opinion that if a language designer doesn't think about the programmer enough to create a usable language with a custom syntax, then the users probably should rebel against such a language and go for the more considerate language designer.
XML based languages are losers in the long run.