Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:54:06PM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>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?
is == it ? What do you need to do?
RNG is as powerful as Schema for strongly typed data structures expressed in
XML, more convenient than DTD for document-oriented XML (!), and *much* more
useful for document-oriented than XSD. I suspect that initial uptake is
likely to be in the document crowd, but the ease of learning is likely to be
attractive to the data crowd as well.
(I spend large portions of my day working with schemata of various types and
flavors, but all of the above is merely MHO).
>2. More sustainable. Will a better layered framework using RNG
>result in information that is more efficient to maintain, reuse, etc.?
Certainly better separation of data typing/primitives from complex
structures. Deprecation of defaulting (*such* a good idea ...) means less
ambiguity over the value of such things.
Very flexible system for specifying complex types, and for permitting
flexibility in the instance.
I think of RNG as the dark horse. That it came to the party so late is
regrettable, but almost inevitable. It seems to have taken some of the best
ideas from a couple of very brilliant XML designers/implementors, plus a
supporting cast, and generated a schema language that is aesthetically
pleasing, elegant, easy to use, and easy to implement.
Amelia A. Lewis firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for the lead role in a cage?
-- Pink Floyd