[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That's all fine, Michael. Yet as Rick notes and is published,
an ISO committee has been formed to work on further issues. The list
members and even the press has questioned the inability of
XML to associate semantics in an interoperable, say, standard
way. The RNG work is excellent, stands well on its own, and the
next test is how well it plays with others.
Anyone ever noticed how the post-Christmas XML-Dev flurry has a
way of setting the agendas for a lot of work for the year to come?
Having just read an NIC analysis of the WTO in Seattle, it
works remarkably the same but XML-Dev is better at it. ;-)
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:mike@wyeast.net]
I do not speak for the RELAX NG TC, but I believe the consensus was that we
did not want to create yet another form for associating schema nor to rework
existing forms.
Nothing however in RELAX NG prohibits a developer from using elements or
attributes from a foreign namespace that could do the job as well as any.
For example, nothing in RELAX NG would prohibit xsi:schemaLocation.
I don't believe there is any intent to enter the "reinvent zone"; RELAX NG
will no doubt remain a simple validation layer of processing that depends on
an application or some other generalized form to stipulate how schema and
documents are associated.
If other members of the RELAX NG TC disagree, I hope they speak up.
|
