XML DTD for the package configuration file

[Joe English]

Peter Simons wrote:

> Isaac Jones writes:
>  > Should I be using schemas?
>
> My impression is that schemas are impossible to write (or to
> understand) without special editing tools, because they're so
> incredibly verbose.

Seconded.  (But please: use the term "W3C XML Schema" to
describe these things, not "schema".  There are _many_
schema languages for XML, including DTDs, Relax NG, Schematron,
and serveral others.  W3C XML Schema is just the one that's
gotten the most press.)

> I also tend to favor DTDs because they are
> understood by SGML parsers as well (with minor changes). Last but not
> least, there is a DtdToHaskell converter, but no SchemaToHaskell
> converter. :-)

I'll add that a WXSToHaskell converter would be very difficult:
there's a huge impedance mismatch between the W3C XML Schema type
system and the Haskell type system.


--Joe English

  jenglish at flightlab.com