[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> At 03:55 PM 7/3/2002 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> >(a) RELAX NG has not been brushed aside: that term would imply a
> >deliberate rejection. As far as I know, no proposal to
> support RELAX NG
> >has ever been considered by the working group.
>
Simon St. Laurent replied:
> RELAX NG has definitely been discussed by the working group;
Can you provide evidence for this? I've done a search on the archives
(it would have been easier if relax were not a normal English verb) and
I can't find any. There are a number of individual messages that mention
RELAX in passing, e.g. to illustrate alternative type semantics; but no
minutes that indicate that RELAX has ever been discussed or "brushed
aside".
> at one point I
> understood the formal model had much more in common with
> RELAX NG than with W3C XML Schema.
That might well be true. Integration with Schema has certainly been at
times a painful process: I never suggested otherwise.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@ntlworld.com
work: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
|
