Re: [xml-dev] Making a silk purse out of the schema sows ear - was [xml-dev]Minimal XML Specification

["Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@hotmail.com>]

>I haven't heard of anything merging Schematron with xsd validation.

Doesn't Daniel Cazzulino's SchemaTron.Net implementation do exactly that ?

>I think it's valued Michael. I'm sure others on this list do too.
>I guess we aren't 'the world'.

This is a sentiment that has come through a number of threads recently and, 
much as it pains me to say it (again), academic pursuit is a very worthy 
cause and can result in real world technology advancement, but the bottom 
line is that most of us *do* actually work for paymasters who value the here 
and now, not the potential further upstream, or the 'better' technolgy that 
doesn't seem to gain traction for whatever reason. The harsh lesson is that 
even 'ugly' implementations that are on the table are much more attractive 
than vapour-ware, warts an all. I'm sure we've all experienced how tough the 
sell is for establishing architectural or infrastructure foundations vs. the 
delivery pressure which demands that we take the path of least resistance 
solution.

Fraser.

Fraser.

>From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
>Reply-To: davep@dpawson.co.uk
>To: Michael Champion <michael.champion@hotmail.com>
>CC: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Making a silk purse out of the schema sows ear - was 
>[xml-dev] Minimal XML Specification
>Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:48:01 +0000
>
>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
>this issue.
>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
> > references).
>I've always viewed Schematron as providing additional functionality
>beyond what
>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
>processing.
>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'.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Dave Pawson
>XSLT + Docbook FAQ
>http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>