Re: breaking up? (RELAX NG, XHTML)

[Alexander Nakhimovsky <sasha@cs.colgate.edu>]

>From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>

<snip/>

>I never had very high expectations for XML Schema. I see
>its utility, but I was concerned with its complexity very early on. I really
>wish the W3C had given us something like RELAX NG (combined with simple data
>types), instead. [1]

I would like to support this and point out one more reason: the RELAX NG 
implementation of Modularization and XHTML Basic is the only one that can 
be broadly accepted and used.  Those who care about broad XHTML acceptance 
must support RELAX NG.

Two specific developments would help.  One is support from XML editors, 
such as XMetaL and XML Spy.  The other is an additional Appendix in XHTML 
Modularization that would contain or point to the RELAX NG implementation 
when it is released.  This would be a small-scope but significant signal to 
implementers and developers.

Easily-customizable XHTML, within a syntax-directed editor, with simple 
datatype checking, would be a significant advance, in my opinion.

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200108/msg00303.html
Alexander Nakhimovsky   tel 315-228-7586
Computer Science Dpt    fax 315-228-7004
Colgate University   sasha@cs.colgate.edu
Hamilton NY 13346    sasha@mail.colgate.edu
http://csproj.colgate.edu/adn.htm