W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: SVG 1.2 WD - Usefulness of XML Schema

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:01:36 +0200
Message-ID: <3EAFF360.1040908@pinkjuice.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org

J. David Eisenberg wrote:


> I agree that having a schema is useful;


I also agree. Schemas written in XML can be processed with XML tools, 
which is handy for various applications, such as (my tiny, currently 
inactive project) Jelly [1].

> I'm not convinced that W3C XML 
> Schema is the best choice. I'd much prefer Relax NG, which is easier to 
> write and easier to read.


I agree.

> It also has a more sound technical base. See
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html
> for James Clark's analysis.


The main schema could be written in RNG. WXS and DTD versions could be 
generated automatically [2]. IIRC (can't find the post), that's what the 
DocBook folks are planning to do; in any case, "The DocBook TC expects 
to publish official DTD, RELAX NG, and W3C XML Schema versions ofDocBook 
V5.0." [3]. This seems to imply that all three versions will be normative.

Perhaps that would be an option? Or perhaps it would be simpler to offer 
only two normative versions, eg RNG and WXS?

Tobi

[1]
http://www.pinkjuice.com/ruby/jelly/

[2]
http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/trang.html

[3]
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200207/msg00628.html

[more]
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/docbook/2001-12/msg00061.html

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 12:02:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:24 GMT