[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 15:49, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
> I saw someone (don't remember who) make the generalization recently that
> RELAX NG is gaining in popularity with people doing XML work with
> irregularly structured documents that would end up being published in some
> medium or other (the "doc heads"), and that W3C Schemas are more entrenched
> with the XML developers doing systems involved in more transactional
> processes such as web services and database interaction ("data heads"). Does
> anyone strongly agree or disagree with this?
I am most certainly a doc head, and so far I have stuck to DTDs. This is
mostly because of practical considerations. XML editors and document
management systems still have better support for DTDs than any other
alternative.
>From my document-centric point of view W3C XML Schemas mean a lot of
pain for very little real gain. RELAX NG looks more interesting to me,
but tool support is crucial. I don't think RELAX NG is quite ready for
prime time use yet. (I would like to be wrong about this. If I am,
please tell me.)
>
> An important auxiliary question: how many large publishing organizations
> (i.e. doc heads with lots of documents) have 1. made a strong commitment to
> XSD, 2. made a strong commitment to RNG, or 3. are still sticking with DTDs?
Some of the clients I work for are quite large companies. They usually
stick with DTDs.
<snip>
/Henrik
|
