OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] BOXED XML (was RE: [xml-dev] Re: Remembering the originalX

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


 > I believe that XML Schema is destined to be the "byte code" of XML
 > metadata - a machine-readable format that can be "interpreted"
 > anywhere but that few will want to author directly.

I think W3C XML Schema doesn't fit the requirements of a "byte code" of 
XML metadata at all. Shouldn't a bytecode contain as few irrelevant 
details as possible? Shoudn't a bytecode be easy to process?

A bytecode for xml metadata should be powerful, minimal and simple: a 
decent programmer should be able to write some code to process the 
bytecode in just a few days with the right tools.

Writing tools that take W3C XML Schema as an input is almost impossible 
because it takes way too much time to implement the complete W3C XML 
Schema standard.

I'm not trying to say that RELAX NG should become the bytecode of xml 
metadata, but at least this alternative is minimal, powerful and based 
on a simple formalism. Implementing tools that operate on RELAX NG is easy.

Martin Bravenboer


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS