Re: Reviving the xPL Schema definition discussion

["Frank Mc Alinden" <frankmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gerry

> Any thoughts?  Should this move forward, stay in discussion mode for a
> while
> or just be dropped?


Personally i think its a great idea ......May require more discussion , but
i cant think of any negatives myself......

Frank

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Duprey" <gerry@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:32 AM
Subject: [ukha_xpl] Reviving the xPL Schema definition discussion


> Howdy,
>
> A while back, I brought up the topic of finding a formalized way to
encode
> the xPL schema specification into a means that was machine parsable. 
My
> thinking was this format could be used by programs to know how to
> receive/send messages to new devices and could be the
"source" documented
> that is processed into a more human readable HTML document.
>
> Right now, schemas are defined in plain text documents.  While they
are
> pretty reasonably formatted, there are variation in terminology and
> structure leading to some questions that may not be fully answered by
a
> developer looking to use that schema the first time.
>
> By formalizing this, it would remove much of the possibility for
ambiguity
> and allow an even more dynamic xPL network to exist.  The schema
documents
> can be hosted in a common place with a machine readable directory
(just
> like
> the plugins files) so that an application, on first encountering
messages
> for a schema it's not previously heard from, could fetch the document,
> parse
> it and adjust itself accordingly.
>
> Anyway, at the time (about October 12th), there was some discussion,
but
> not
> too much more.  I'd like to get back to this at some point (once I get
my
> UPB xPL modules complete) and thought I'd bring it back up (you can go
> back
> to that message in the archives for a summary of an initial XML file
> format
> proposal).
>
> Any thoughts?  Should this move forward, stay in discussion mode for a
> while
> or just be dropped?
>
> NOTE: It's important to realize that, like the vendor plugin file,
this is
> an optional thing -- a vendor could introduce a new schema class/type
> without it and devices/programs would be under no obligation to have
to
> support reading/parsing it, but it would be there for devices that can
> support it (like my currently languishing xPL user interface builder).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gerry
> --
> Gerry Duprey
> Ann Arbor, MI 48103
> http://www.cdp1802.org
>
>
>
> xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com
> http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
> To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
> To Subscribe:  ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> To Unsubscribe:  ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>