[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Fw: [XCON] Consensus 66-03: Schema vs RelaxNG
- From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=5cjXwjLOJvQAPKbyITXevDEjeoARjFoxoOKIU6EDoU1aFA3IqnQ9zYQpWheNsADm3UV1jwSlbB0biR9Yc6i91qwIAgEA9kVPtHqLhzew2e/sGIrfujhc2489GWwb9tyzreB6FMP20Y3DZacG6gtxsJvr9KxVPBTmb+dwl/bmSHI= ;
- In-reply-to: <004701c6b159$f43d94c0$6500a8c0@RW>
--- Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
wrote:
> Relevant to discussions earlier this month... Is
> the tide turning?
...
> XCON seems very data oriented, but I've heard that
> Relax NG is not suited to
> this.
I don't know. In practice, since RNG can and does
reuse the standard datatype lib from W3C Schema, I'm
not sure if W3C Schema really has significant edge on
data typing. It does have some benefits when doing o2x
binding (due to otherwise strange OO mix-ins
included), but for plain data typing they seem
similarly expressive. There is of course the
possibility of deriving types in w3c schema... but
it's just a hassle that I don't know if it's a pro or
con, compared to the ultimate swiss pocketknife
(regexps), or delegation (some rules deferred to level
where there's actual semantic understanding of
contents).
... but I'm sure there are many xml/w3c-schema gurus
that can enlighten me by pointing out things I am
missing. :-)
-+ Tatu +-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
