Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: To Relax or not to Relax
 Terren Suydam wrote: > Do you think it makes sense to use Relax now, as a transition between DTD-based > validation and XML Schemas? > Do you think Relax might ultimately be superior to XML Schemas? Is the motorbike superiour to the motorcar? It is like that Woody Allen movie where his parents argued about whether the Atlantic Ocean was "greater" than the Pacific. Now that XML Schemas is pretty much complete we can look at it and figure out what it is good for. For datatyping, XML Schemas and RELAX are pretty much the same. I'd say they are good if you have transnational data requirements or systems, especially if you need to connect these to databases or to send data between backend systems. But if you want to send your data in formats, you have to fall back to calling all your datatypes strings, and using lexical typing. For example, if you want to send dates as "03/32/00" you cannot say "this is a date" but you can just say "this is a string. (I regard this as a flaw that could easily be recitifed by treating notations properly.) So it may be that XML Schemas fits into a world where data is sent efficiently from a database in transnational formats and some application layer makes it palatable for humans to use. This approach obviously suits large vendors of database and business systems (e.g., Oracle, IBM, SAP, MS, Sun) but does it really suit the needs of people making non-business-related Schemas in XML? Do the datatypes help XSL or WAI or the i18n people? Without pictures, are the datatypes suitable for use in forms? (And if XML Schemas is designed to be used with an intermediary application between it and the user, why is there the need to allow one generic identifier to identify elements of different types depending on context: why is it important for the user to be able to reuse element names but not important to use familiar data values?) As far as the structures spec goes, both XML Schemas and RELAX are based on grammars (where the parent or grandparent determines the child). They have different models of the importance of extendability (XML Schemas) versus modularization (RELAX). These certainly impact the managability of each, but I don't think that Murata-san or the W3C XML Schema WG could warrant that one is universally superior to the other. You may find the RELAX core to be adequate (i.e., the subset of XML Schemas that RELAX shares); we simply don't have enough experience to know whether people for whom that common set is not enough are adequately catered for by the full RELAX or the full XML Schemas. I think the important difference between XML Schemas and RELAX has not been commented on widely, but it is no co-incendence that Murata-san's RELAX and my Schematron both do not make "information set contributions"--indeed I found Murata-san's thoughts on this issue very compelling and I would be very interested to know what he (or the people who have taken up RELAX) currently thinks about this. The issue boils down, perhaps, to whether it is desirable to invent a new class of XML documents: ones which need to be "schema processed" in order to be used. From a power and capability view, it would sure be nice--we can have XPaths which include type awareness (and then Schematron would inherit that!), XBase would know what strings were URIs in documents, and so on. But is this really creating an overly-layered and bloated framework that will have performance problems over the WWW and which will create many excuses for dialects? But this new class of XML documents is where we may be heading. I suspect that many XML-DEV readers might tend to favour lean-and-mean technology for the web, and it has not been demonstrated yet that XML Schemas is lean-and-mean. That is why it is good that XML Schemas has not gone directly to Recommendation, and it is why W3C should be encouraged IMHO to have a Candidate Recommendation period of at least several months; and most importantly it is why we should not regard it as a defeat or victory if XML Schemas has to go back to the XML Schema WG for revision at the end of the CR period. I hope the people in XML-DEV will try to be as constructive as possible during this CR period: try XML Schema betas, see if they do what you want...try RELAX..try Schematron even. I think Murata-san has been admirably constructive in this regard: in RELAX he has helped point out which parts of XML Schemas may be regarded as core and which parts may be regarded as peripheral. And, most importantly, he has raised the big issue of what processing architecture the XML WWW should have. Even though I, obviously, tend to think the whole grammar-based approach (as used in all the schema languages) is a little bogus (I have a draft of a new Schematron paper on this at http://www.ascc.net/xml/resource/schematron/Schematron2000.html, comments welcome), it is obvious that we are stuck with grammar-based schema languages and that we will have to make the best of it. Rick Jelliffe *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ *************************************************************************** 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
