Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The truth about standards...
 I interpret it to favor the W3C specifications even if they are works in progress over other standards organization works even if these are complete. That eliminates competitors if there is a W3C candidate. So we aren't to compare the relative merits of each but take the W3C uber alles. That's bad policy. It does let the Project Management have the last say, and that is pretty much what policy has always been. It does enable justifications such as the wall-to-wall use of one vendor's technology predisposing some parts to be proprietary. Lots of wiggle room there. They do need to clarify and they do need to understand that some technologies will have better alternatives for some cases. RELAXNG is probably the star case for that. len From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] > Take a look at the Draft Federal Standard for > XML Developers. Note that it prefers W3C specs > over works from other organizations even if the > W3C specs are works in progress. So in a policy > document, the sort of thing Gosling mentions is > indeed happening. How do you get that? In http://xml.gov/documents/in_progress/developersguide.pdf it merely says that full standards must be used, and where there is competition, favour a W3C Recommendation. If there is a W3C Proposed Recommendation, you may decide to favour that if you commit to upgrading when the Rec comes out. "Ensure" is a funny word to use, and may have some American public service meaning, I suppose, but on the face of it, if there is no WXS REC in sight, you should fallback to another standard, and if there are no standards, you are then (naturally) in the province of proprietary or custom applications. They need to clarify. It also specifically mentions and allows ISO, ebXML and OASIS standards. Indeed, if there is an ISO or OASIS standard and a proprietary technology, people must choose the standard. Then it goes on to say "use XML Schemas" (unless you are continuing with SGML-ish DTD projects). This specifically shuts the door on using DTDs and RELAX NG for being the published structure definition languages for public schemas. It seems that Schematron (assuming it is accepted as an ISO standard) would fit in OK if used to augment a primary WXS schema. The mention of annotations suggests that embedded Schematron is OK too. In particular, it would not be a "proprietary extension" and could not be used to "define structures": instead it is providing (executable) documentation on things like links to external vocabularies and co-occurrence constraints, which are out-of-scope for WXS. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
