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

Re: RNG more popular with doc heads and XSD with dataheads?

• To: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@l...>
• Subject: Re: RNG more popular with doc heads and XSD with dataheads?
• From: Ian Graham <igraham@i...>
• Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:57:39 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EBE52F44@l...>
• Reply-to: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>

I'm involved in a large cross-environment (IBM, Siebel, Microsoft, others)
Web services implimentation, and we've been heavily using XSD for message
specificaitons .... but have been clobbered often by weak support for XSD
(and WSDL) across the different environments. 

But we would not consider RNG, as there's no support in the toolsets the
development teams use.

I imagine we'd be giving RNG a try if if were adopted by our commercial
partners, but as it isn't, we shall stick with XSD.

Ian


On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:

> I saw someone (don't remember who) make the generalization recently that
> RELAX NG is gaining in popularity with people doing XML work with
> irregularly structured documents that would end up being published in some
> medium or other (the "doc heads"), and that W3C Schemas are more entrenched
> with the XML developers doing systems involved in more transactional
> processes such as web services and database interaction ("data heads"). Does
> anyone strongly agree or disagree with this? 
> 
> An important auxiliary question: how many large publishing organizations
> (i.e. doc heads with lots of documents) have 1. made a strong commitment to
> XSD, 2. made a strong commitment to RNG, or 3. are still sticking with DTDs?
> 
> Just *why* RNG would be more attractive to doc heads and XSD to data heads
> seems fairly obvious to me--RNG allows greater precision in how tightly or
> loosely you specify content model constraints, XSD makes mapping to
> relational and OO systems easier, transactional XML specs are usually
> written in XSD, etc.--so I'd rather not start a big long thread adding to
> these "why" lists. I'm more interested in hearing about the levels of
> commitment among doc heads that people have seen to the three choices listed
> above, to get an idea of where we're all headed.
> 
> Bob DuCharme          www.snee.com/bob           <bob@  
> snee.com>  "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy
> spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 

• References:
  • RNG more popular with doc heads and XSD with data heads?
    • From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: regex for element or attr name
• Next by Date: W3C Schema to HTML form. Is a generic solution available?
• Previous by thread: Re: RNG more popular with doc heads and XSD with dataheads?
• Next by thread: RE: RNG more popular with doc heads and XSD with data heads?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread