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

Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

• To: "James Clark" <jjc@j...>
• Subject: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• From: "Jason Diamond" <jason@i...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:38:42 -0700
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621CB5@r...> <006301c2109a$e68cf280$0300a8c0@skonnardomni> <20020610174934.GA12033@t...> <3D04F3BF.7080500@t...> <004001c210bc$d58ba4f0$8a265fa6@CARLSB1JADIAMO> <007a01c21112$1c5792e0$3500a8c0@b...>

James Clark <jjc@j...> wrote:

> In conclusion, my view is that although XSD out of the box provides much
> more support for data-binding than RELAX NG, nonetheless RELAX NG provides
a
> suitable basis on which to build support for data-binding.  The RELAX NG
> approach gives a lot of flexibility and avoids imposing costs on those who
> do not use XML just as a serialization format for C# and Java. However, I
> have to admit that until such time as the kinds of annotation I mentioned
> above get standardized, RELAX NG provides less interoperability than XSD
for
> data-binding.


I am in absolute agreement with your entire message except that I don't
think it's necessary to shoehorn RELAX NG into doing something it wasn't
designed to do. I view data binding and validation as two entirely different
beasts. RELAX NG did the right thing in not trying to accomplish both tasks
with one language. The fact that XSDL did not is most likely why it's so
much more complex and yet less powerful of a validation language than RELAX
NG.

If we really want to keep our specs layered and modular, we should use a
separate language to describe our types. Those documents could then be
transformed into code for data binding and transformed into RELAX NG (or
whatever) for validation.

Jason

• References:
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "Jason Diamond" <jason@i...>
  • Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
    • From: "James Clark" <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by thread: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread