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] Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Roger L. Costello wrote:

> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>>>Why would it matter that a canonicalizer tool utilize an
>>>XML Schema rather than a DTD?  Where would it make a difference?

> Is it not time to update the XML canonicalization specification?  When
> everyone was using DTDs then canonicalization of just {XML, DTD} pairs made
> sense.  But now that many people are using XML Schemas it seems to me that
> canonicalization needs to be upgraded to support {XML, XML-Schema} pairs.

I fail to see the benefit of that. Stability is more important here. It 
is supposed to be a "canonical" form, after all; not the flavor of the 

> Better yet, the canonicalization specification should be upgraded to handle
> all 5 Validation Languages:
> 1. DTD
> 2. XML Schemas
> 3. RelaxNG
> 4. Schematron

I don't know what OASIS CAM is, but neither Schematron nor RELAX NG 
augments the Infoset in any way. Therefore they have no effect on 
canonicalization. This is a relative advantage for these two languages.

Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!


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

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