[
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
month.
> Better yet, the canonicalization specification should be upgraded to handle
> all 5 Validation Languages:
>
> 1. DTD
> 2. XML Schemas
> 3. RelaxNG
> 4. Schematron
> 5. OASIS CAM
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!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
