Re: [xml-dev] Content Assembly Mechanism (CAM)

[Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com>]

could you elaborate on that relax NG + schematron?
i can understand that chaining relax validation and schematron
processing is definitely possible.

but as far as i understand, they are no integration effort between them.

any resource about that?


On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Lech Rzedzicki <xchaotic@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Olivier Rossel <olivier.rossel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> after just a few minutes of reading:
>> CAM looks great to enforce subtle non-trivial validation rules in your schema.
>> but defining the structure of the document directly from a sample XML
>> structure sounds extremely low-level.
>
> I have to agree and openly criticise reinventing the wheel. The IBM
> article mentions building a better mousetrap, but it forgets that very
> often programmers reinvent the wheel. There is a very validation
> engine out there that both the thing that CAM does and it's called
> RelaxNG.
> Unsurprisingly, CAM uses XPath for businness rule validation, which is
> exactly what RelaxNG has with Schematron rules.
> Relax, especially in it's compact syntax is far more readable, in my
> view, for defining structure.
>
>> i hope some people from CAM are around so we can discuss those points.
>
> I hope so too, I really would like to see the effort being pointed in
> the right direction, such as extending one of the existing standards.
> Despite my criticsm, there are some great ideas in there, such as
> featuring code lists and separating business rules from defining XML
> structure. Ideally I would really want to see the best of all schema
> validation engines merged into one some time in the future.
>
> Lech
>