[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi,
I don't post often, but could not resist.
I have developed an interest in RELAX NG, and it has quickly become my
favourite schema language, because I like the compact syntax and the
expressive power.
I am currently working on a schema for technical documents and articles,
where I use the compact RELAX NG syntax for writing the source
documents. I then use Trang to convert to the RELAX NG XML syntax, DTD,
and XSD. I also use mkrls to convert the DTD I get from Trang to an
XMetaL rules file. All the conversions are controlled by a very simple
Ruby script.
This system allows me to write schemas using a decent syntax, use the
schema, after conversion to a DTD, in a good editor, and maintain
compatibility with all three schema formats. Of course, as long as I am
gunning for compatibility, the format I am designing is also subject to
the limitations of all the formats...
AFAIK, I would ditch DTDs for RELAX NG if the tool support was good
enough, and widespread enough. XSD will never become a favourite, it's
much to clunky. DTDs are still a necessity when working with document
oriented XML, whether I like it or not.
/Henrik Mårtensson
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 22:49, Rick Marshall wrote:
> before anyone "throws the baby out with the bathwater", can i point out
> that i use dtd's (internally - you can't see them) because i only care
> that the element/attribute structure is correct in incoming messages.
> the rest is handled by the downstream processors.
>
> in this circumstance i'm not sure i want the added complexity of xsd.
>
> rick
>
> DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>
> <snip>
|
