Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 09:05 -0800, Michael Champion wrote:
> - RELAX NG is clearly "better" for textual documents but doesn't have
> much support for the data-oriented use cases. (Sure you can plug in
> the XSD type system, but that's a big part of the problem).
A separable part? Other than Jeni Tennison, I haven't seen any uptake on
At least relax ng allows data type plug ins.
> We now have an unpleasant situation of fragmentation where there's
> little mainstream tool support for RELAX NG due to lack of demand,
> exploitation of its geek chic (partly to strike a blow against the
> empire, I suppose), with the result that the normative definitions of
> Atom and ODF can't be used with most commercial XML tools.
Unless you use relax ng tools to convert to xsd?
> - Schematron is moving forward as an ISO standard and has some good
> implementations but has few normative references in vertical industry
> standards nor mindshare. (Correct me if I'm wrong about the normative
I've always viewed Schematron as providing additional functionality
my schema validation gives me, not as a replacement? Rick?
> The best way forward that I can see is to encourage end users to
> employ XSD + Schematron
I know of one tool that merges relax ng functionality with schematron
I haven't heard of anything merging Schematron with xsd validation.
A single stage validation is helpful, rather than pipelining.
> as necessary, and encourage W3C to address XSD's bugs and
> ambiguities before adding more onto an unstable foundation. What
> does that miss that the world actually values? (as much as it
> depresses me to say it, the world doesn't seem to value RELAX NG's
> elegance and mathematical foundation very much).
I think it's valued Michael. I'm sure others on this list do too.
I guess we aren't 'the world'.
XSLT + Docbook FAQ