Lists Home |
Date Index |
Wasn't XML Schema on the boards before RNG? Timing counts.
If we stay away from rich vs poor for a moment, I asked a question
that consists of "show me the value added by using RNG". Is it:
1. More productive. Can one compose faster, is it easier to learn,
does is do what I need to do in the framework?
2. More sustainable. Will a better layered framework using RNG
result in information that is more efficient to maintain, reuse, etc.?
Cheaper isn't exactly an issue in the tool support. If it translates,
then it is reasonable to assume that tools that can support DTDs
can be reengineered to support RNG. If John Cowan's AF approach
were to be included, we get a kind of inheritance (not really, but).
If Schematron techniques are provided, we get co-occurrence
validation. A new tool or a better tool is just a C.O.B. issue.
So, DSDL looks promising. Now timing is an issue. Legacy builds
but Schema legacy isn't that deep yet. Microsoft support is of
value and Microsoft listens to their customers. Selling this idea
to their customers has value.
From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:email@example.com]
To come back to the RELAX NG marketing issue, I really don't see any domain
where XML Schema is preferable to RELAX NG, apart from tool support.
And why has XML Schema a better tool support ? Because it is so. Because
everybody let the market decide instead of making an decision in good faith.
Because XML Schema was proposed by the W3C, which is sponsored by vendors.
So vendors influenced vendors, and what we get is a vendor-friendly
technology (expensive to implement (even in open-source), expensive to use,
with nice formal specs to please nerds and make sure that common people
can't get it).