Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 09:05 -0800, Michael Champion wrote: > - RELAX NG is clearly "better" for textual documents but doesn't have > much support for the data-oriented use cases. (Sure you can plug in > the XSD type system, but that's a big part of the problem). A separable part? Other than Jeni Tennison, I haven't seen any uptake on this issue. At least relax ng allows data type plug ins. > We now have an unpleasant situation of fragmentation where there's > little mainstream tool support for RELAX NG due to lack of demand, > exploitation of its geek chic (partly to strike a blow against the > empire, I suppose), with the result that the normative definitions of > Atom and ODF can't be used with most commercial XML tools. Unless you use relax ng tools to convert to xsd? > > - Schematron is moving forward as an ISO standard and has some good > implementations but has few normative references in vertical industry > standards nor mindshare. (Correct me if I'm wrong about the normative > references). I've always viewed Schematron as providing additional functionality beyond what my schema validation gives me, not as a replacement? Rick? > The best way forward that I can see is to encourage end users to > employ XSD + Schematron I know of one tool that merges relax ng functionality with schematron processing. I haven't heard of anything merging Schematron with xsd validation. A single stage validation is helpful, rather than pipelining. > as necessary, and encourage W3C to address XSD's bugs and > ambiguities before adding more onto an unstable foundation. What > does that miss that the world actually values? (as much as it > depresses me to say it, the world doesn't seem to value RELAX NG's > elegance and mathematical foundation very much). I think it's valued Michael. I'm sure others on this list do too. I guess we aren't 'the world'. -- Regards, Dave Pawson XSLT + Docbook FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk
|
