[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: R: Number of active public XML schemas
[Jumping in at a random point in the thread] In the US federal space, the following site has just been made publicaly available for the registration of XML schemas and other XML artifacts: https://xml.core.gov/ This is part of a site called Core.gov, which is run by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). I am not certain of the rules/policies for registration and discovery (as I am personally not directly involved with the project), but I understand it requires a login. I wanted to offer it up as an example of a place where one could see schemas registered in the future. Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World > -----Original Message----- > From: Chizzolini Stefano [mailto:chist@c...] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:36 AM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: R: Number of active public XML schemas > > > -----Messaggio originale----- > > Da: Ronald Bourret [SMTP:rpbourret@r...] > > Inviato: martedì 2 novembre 2004 7.06 > > A: 'xml-dev' > > Oggetto: Re: Number of active public XML schemas > > > > Michael Kay wrote: > > > >>Or because they [DTDs] are easier to understand, > >> > >> I have yet to see a DTD of more than trivial size > that is not totally > >> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash > enough to make a one line > >> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter > entities and conditional > >> sections. > > >From personal experience, I'd have to say that complex > DTDs are > >slightly more penetrable than XSDs. As a user, I'm > usually just trying > >to find out one or two things and I can do this by > chasing entities > > >through the DTD with a text editor. I give up > completely when faced with > >a complex XSD document. (And in neither case can I get > an overall > picture.) > > >Which raises an interesting question: Should there be > a non-XML syntax > >for XSDs like there is for RELAX NG? It's always been > an article of > > >faith for me that schemas should be written in XML, if > for no other > > >reason than not having to write another parser. But > one does have to > >wonder... > > I think there are some valid reasons for writing schemas in XML: > seamlessness, elegance and power. Adopting a > "self-describing" language syntax avoids the users from > learning a new one and allows to leverage many existing > applications derived from the original spec (in this case, > XML spec); I mean, for example, the chance to dynamically > generate brand new schemas through XSL transformations. > > Stefano > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >
|
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
|