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

RE: Why datatypes?

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: Why datatypes?
• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
• Cc: "'Gustaf Liljegren'" <gustaf.liljegren@x...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B532@HQ5>

schematron uses a different paradigm from RELAX NG and XML-Schema.

however, schematron uses this paradigm for somewhat the same purpose as
what RELAX NG and XML-Schema do.

but I think there recently have been efforts that schematron actually
complements what is done by RELAX NG and XML-Schema -- that is very good.

I have not followed schematron closely but I think what is really
interesting contribution from schematron is the paradigm by which it does
things -- the applications where it is useful, I am not sure.

Again, if someone could provide some application scenarios and how
schematron helps with some technical detail, I would be very glad.

thanks and regards - murali.

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Someone usually does.  The SGMLers understand it and practiced it
> virtually like a religion (the SGML Way).  It gets messy however to
> ignore processing contexts if systems are to interoperate without
> human interventions.  A reason for understanding what features XML
> Schema, RELAX NG and/or Schematron enable is to pick the right tool to
> get the right strength of agreement.  (Am I the only one who considers
> Schematron almost heroic?  It is the one piece the others need
> consistently and why I am holding out for DSDL.)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why datatypes?
    • From: Eddie Robertsson <erobertsson@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Why datatypes?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why datatypes?
• Next by Date: Re: Why datatypes?
• Previous by thread: RE: Why datatypes?
• Next by thread: Re: Why datatypes?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread