[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Alternatives to XML Schemas

• From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:02:14 -0800

> I walked away from my cursory look at TREX with the same impression.  I
> think TREX holds a lot of promise.

Am I the only one who, after learning TREX, didn't have the reverberating
thought floating in my brain, "Huh, so even TREX relies upon XML Schemas..."
after reading that XML Schemas Part 2 Datatypes is the primary datatype
implementation "...maybe relying on XML Schemas isn't so bad."

TREX does hold a lot of promise, it is a great alternative. However, I don't
know how much is gained over XML Schemas-- sure there are benefits-- but is
it that much simpler?  Perhaps-- maybe because there are certain things that
it doesn't approach that XML Schemas do (and vice versa).  Does that make
one simpler than the other, not in my (very humble) opinion.  If you aren't
going to use those extra features don't learn them.

Best Regards,
Jeff Rafter

• References:
  • RE: Alternatives to XML Schemas
    • From: "Wedinger, Keith" <Keith_Wedinger@s...>

• Prev by Date: What is an XPath API?
• Next by Date: RE: painting types
• Previous by thread: RE: Alternatives to XML Schemas
• Next by thread: RE: Alternatives to XML Schemas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread