[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> At 04:08 PM 6/29/2002 +0100, Sean McGrath wrote:
> >"W3C Schema will soon disappear into oblivion without a non XML syntax..."
> >
> >- Tom Gaven, XML Journal. Vol 3, Issue 6, Page 48
> >
> >Opinions?
>
> I thought the same of XSLT, and here I am on a Saturday morning working
> with XSLT.
>
> I think RELAX NG's non-XML syntax works because the model in RELAX NG works
> pretty simply. I have a very very hard time picturing a non-XML syntax for
> W3C XML Schema, and I'm not sure that it would be any more readable or
> workable than the XML syntax.
>
> I'd love to be proven wrong on that one.
>
> Simon St.Laurent
> "Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
>
Having a non-XML syntax does make teaching easier in many respects. I
found when teaching a beginning XML class that they had less trouble
understanding DTDs than Relax because DTDs don't look like XML.
When we started Relax, there was all sorts of confusion about where things
belonged: the grammar or the document to be validated, since they both
were XML. And that was with the conceptually simpler Relax rather than
Schema!
--
J. David Eisenberg http://catcode.com/
|
