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@flightlab.com