Lists Home |
Date Index |
RNC certainly. A GUI user doesn't need a simplified
syntax. Or do they? One still has to edit in the
text window with most GUI-driven XML tools, but how
and where the schema is designed is also important.
For example, getting the schema directly from the
tables doesn't leave much for the schema hacker to
do? Or does it? Why does a table designer need
a schema edit window at all?
I mean 'Microsoft distribution' first, then others
in order of market share. There are problems
such as the hiding effect making it appear on a shallow
analysis that knowledge of what is hidden is not
important. I was told recently not to worry about
schemas because VS takes care of all of that for us.
I know better. But when one finally does have to peek
behind the curtains, it certainly is better if what
is back there is easier to learn than other alternatives
given isomorphic functionality.
Again, I speculate that what some majority of the
GUI-enabled schema systems are doing with the schema
could be done by most or all of the current schema
languages. Given that, why shouldn't VS enable one
to select the schema language? Is it an issue of
'the W3C sanctioned this one and we are good members',
or 'this came first and we had sweat equity in it,
and you only need one', or 'sounds good, maybe later'?
A shot in the dark: RELAX NG is not perceived as an
interesting technology in the domain where many desktop
and services vendors are focused at the moment: web services.
Would that perception be wrong?
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com> writes:
> Once RELAX has a large enough following and desktop
Do you mean "GUI"? Don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
> I suppose it comes down the demographic of the target
> of the discussion topic.
Yep. I would speculate that the kind of people that RELAX NG appeals
to are the kind that GUIs don't, and vice versa.