W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: DAV Schema Assessment (was Re: rfc2518bis DAV DTD ...)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:19:57 +0200
To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEFLINAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Eric,

> There's not much interest in Relax NG in actual vendor products.  Unless
> people are actually going to use validators, I don't think we should push
> Relax NG on people.

I think that's a non-issue. We don't want to push *any* particular language
on people. We were looking for something that would work better than DTDs,
and RelaxNG seems to do that (it can express what we want and it has a
readable syntax suitable for embedding in specs).

If the requirement for the notation actually is that it needs to be a W3C
spec and there have to be implementations by Microft, IBM and Oracle, then
we can stop this discussion right away. The only alternative to DTDs would
be XML Schema, and we know that it doesn't work. In which case we should go
back to the original question about what we want to say normatively about
the DTD fragments we use.

On the other hand, RelaxNG fulfills all technical requirements, has working
open source reference implementations, is as open as a spec as XML Schema
(although Oasis instead of W3C) *and* is on it's way to a real ISO standard
(something you can't say about XML Schema).

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:39 AM
> To: Julian Reschke; dennis.hamilton@acm.org; Stanley Guan;
> w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DAV Schema Assessment (was Re: rfc2518bis DAV DTD ...)
>
>
>

>
> --Eric
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>;
> "Stanley Guan" <stanley.guan@oracle.com>; <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:50 PM
> Subject: RE: DAV Schema Assessment (was Re: rfc2518bis DAV DTD ...)
>
>
> >
> > OK,
> >
> > I just spend a few minutes with Jing (Relax NG validator) and Trang
> (Schema
> > Language convertor) [1]. Some initial thoughts:
> >
> > - RelaxNG can express WebDAV's extensibility model
> > - RelaxNG has both an XML based syntax ( la XML Schema) and a Compact
> > syntax ( la DTD)
> > - Trang supports to/from DTD, XML Schema, RelaxG (compact/XML) and (!)
> > sample XML instance data
> > - RelaxNG supports the XML schema datatypes
> >
> > Here's an example for dav:propfind in RNC (Relax NG Compact Syntax):
> >
> > namespace dav = "DAV:"
> >
> > start = propfind
> >
> > allprop = element dav:allprop { empty }
> >
> > prop =
> >   element dav:prop {
> >     element * { empty }+
> >   }
> > propname = element dav:propname { empty }
> > propfind = element dav:propfind { (allprop | prop | propname) & EXT? }
> >
> > EXT =
> >   element * - (dav:allprop
> >                | dav:href
> >                | dav:multistatus
> >                | dav:prop
> >                | dav:propfind
> >                | dav:propname
> >                | dav:response
> >                | dav:status) { empty }
> >
> > ...you get the idea.
> >
> > Should we pursue this?
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> > [1] <http://www.relaxng.org/>
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 03:20:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT