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

RE: SVG 1.2 WD - Usefulness of XML Schema

From: Mikael Bourges-Sevenier <mikael@sevenier.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:23:24 -0700
To: "'Tobias Reif'" <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007301c30f3d$3665f8a0$6701a8c0@Merlin>

Dear All,

For modularization purpose, WXS is better, especially for the OOP concepts
therein that I believe are cruelly missing in RNG. Sure, RNG is clearer,
simpler to learn etc. and would be my choice if only it had OOP possible as
it is in WXS and more support in the industry.

Best,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Tobias Reif
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:01 AM
> To: www-svg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SVG 1.2 WD - Usefulness of XML Schema
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
>  > RB> but the models used for modularization in RNG and WXS 
> are  > RB> different  > RB> enough that even it can't seem to 
> maintain authorial  > RB> intent in the translation.  >  > 
> unfortunately true [...]  > RB> However it *may* be possible 
> to still do something smart in this  > RB> area to also have 
> some RNG without doubling maintenance costs.  > RB> I've been 
> having vague ideas in the back of my mind for a while,  > RB> 
> hopefully they'll take shape as something useful :)  >  > I 
> have been sort of hoping that too.
> 
> Does that mean that you would like to choose RNG over WXS for 
> the master 
>   schema, if this issue would not exist?
> 
> Tobi
> 
> -- 
> http://www.pinkjuice.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 13:23:33 GMT

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