Lists Home |
Date Index |
> From : Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> [...]I had the experience of being *very* familiar with the XML Schema specs,
> then going away for a few months. When I returned, I found them quite
> difficult to fathom. There have been several times when I have not been
> able to answer user's (of our validator) questions and have had to rely on
> another Schema expert here.
You see, I just never could grab XML Schemas (final) specs overall - and thus, a
fortiori, could not feel sufficiently confident to practice it/implement it -
because of my (incomplete) understanding of it - in spite of much efforts,
I can imagine I am not the only one in such a case; but note: this is *not* true
of RELAX NG, for which I pay more and more attention for relatively little time
(a few months) and nevertheless find more and more: complete, elegant,
practical, reliable, etc.
In particular, believe it or not, this helped me a lot in understanding how
RELAX NG implementations are supposed to behave (or, more precisely, give output
Can anyone gimme pointers to an XML Schemas-equivalent, with size in same order
of magnitude as for RELAX NG - thanx in advance?
> [...]But then you cannot use subsititution groups: this is the kind of
> that James is talking about I think--the complexity when using one
> feature makes another disappear arbitrarily.
+1 for me: effectively the kind of situation that frightens me a lot when it
comes to rely on the interpretation/evaluation of formalisms by machines...
> But it is not James who is being black and white: it is the draft RFC
> wanting to
> ban the use of RELAX NG! (and, Schematron or the DSDL effort for that matter!)
... and that's exactly the way I felt that draft "opinion" - and actually, at
the very first reading, you know.