[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> I have been playing with 5 RELAX NG different implementations and have
> never seen interoperability issues like those of W3C XML Schema and I
> don't think that the reason is that RELAX NG implementers are more
> clever than W3C XML Schema implementers but just because the
> specification is much easier to implement.
>
>
Thanks (and thanks to Rick's similar observation). I hadn't realized
that there was a lot of interop experience across different RELAX NG
implementations on different platforms. That's good to know.
I also wish more specs would follow the RELAX NG pattern of being
elegant, test-driven, focused on solving specific problems, etc. The
trouble is, there just aren't very many people capable of operating at
the level that the RELAX NG inventors operate. I've seen something
similar to the XSD vs RELAX NG situation in the XML API space,
participating in the DOM design by committee exercise as well as the
XLinq design by world class designer
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg) exercise. It's pretty
humbling, and I don't think there's a formula for creating great
technology without either a lot of evolutionary selection or a little
bit of extraordinary talent.
And then there's the problem that great technology won't necessarily
succeed against OK technology unless a lot of forces align to make it
happen. Hopefully RELAX NG can flourish in some niche in the short run
and influence some next generation schema language in the long run, even
if the forces don't align to make it a mainstream success.
|
