[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
[xml-dev] Relax NC, was: XML spec and XSD
- From: "Michael Sokolov" <sokolov@ifactory.com>
- To: "'Glidden, Douglass A'" <Douglass.A.Glidden@boeing.com>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:00:51 -0500
To my way of thinking, the compact notation and relative simplicity is what
makes RNC/G extremely attractive. I'm actually really glad it doesn't solve
your problem, Douglass! No offense, but if it did, it would be as complex
as XSD. I guess that's just to say that they seem to occupy different
niches.
In my first project using Relax, I was able to write schemas for my fairly
complex documents after reading documentation (James Clark's excellent
tutorial http://www.relaxng.org/compact-tutorial-20030326.html) for only
about an hour. Admittedly my problems were much simpler than the ones you
describe - only simple inheritance schemes using extension (adding
additional elements and attributes in the subtype), but what was great was I
didn't have to become an expert to do it, and all my colleagues: programmers
and customers (content editors), are able to read the schemas with almost no
training at all.
-Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glidden, Douglass A [mailto:Douglass.A.Glidden@boeing.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:09 PM
....
> Hmmm...I must confess I didn't really explore the shorthand
> version of RNG--perhaps I should take a look at it. That is
> effectively the same as the longhand way I was doing it, and
> while it doesn't strike me as particularly elegant, it at
> least takes up less space.
>
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]