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

Re: Number of active public XML schemas

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Number of active public XML schemas
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:57:36 -0800
• In-reply-to: <20041101194609.GD24287@w...>
• References: <4180B880.8030604@r...> <f5bmzy152lr.fsf@e...> <41869053.8@r...> <20041101194609.GD24287@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Liam Quin wrote:

> W3C XML Schema support has been growing over the past couple of
> years, and interoperability seems to me to have been increasing,

Growing is an understatement. Like it or not, most groups of customers 
I've talked to in the past few years use XML Schemas. Some have even 
gone so far as to wonder why tools even support DTDs any more. Maybe I'm 
just not talking to enough customers?

> but I'd still suggest that people use a DTD if it satisfies
> their needs.

Agreed.

That said, those few of the DTDs I did look at could probably benefit 
from XML Schemas or Relax NG. In particular, most are data-centric and 
could use data typing. The biological DTDs in particular could benefit 
greatly from wildcards. These are often future-proofed by having data 
and/or metadata in the form of property/value pairs. Plain, well-formed 
XML would be more readable and easier to query.

-- Ron

• References:
  • Re: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Number of active public XML schemas
• Next by Date: RE: Number of active public XML schemas
• Previous by thread: RE: Number of active public XML schemas
• Next by thread: Re: Number of active public XML schemas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread