W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > June 2000

Re: "Z39.50 Server List" DTD

From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:07:01 +0100
To: www-zig@w3.org
Message-Id: <E135PQT-0000fY-00@fw-smtp.tecc.co.uk>
> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:37:05 -0700
> From: "Denis Lynch" <DLynch@ACM.org>
> 
> The question of XML vs. ASN.1 really isn't very interesting. (But if
> you're going to use XML, create a schema rather than a DTD. The
> XML-Schema processing instruction makes the XML self-describing --
> which supports Lennie's idea of using a generic XML OID.)

Does anyone have a pointer to a brief but comprehensive document
describing the differences between these new-fangled schema thingies
and good old-fashioned DTDs?  I did look at the W3C's own materials,
but part 0 of its document, the so-called primer weighs in at a
terrifying quarter-megabyte, which is _not_ what I had in mind!

> On the other hand, I don't agree with Rob's implication that an XML
> version of Explain has any bearing at all on the effort required to
> maintain the descriptive data. The mechanical tools help with the
> mechanics, not with the information content. I'm convinced that the
> barrier to implementing Explain is the information content, not the
> data format.

I disagree -- to implement Explain as it stands, it's necessary to
build not only the server bits and pieces, but some form of editor or
translator for the BER-encoded data.  We all know how to hack XML by
hand (i.e. using emacs!) or with the aid of any of the plethora of XML
editors out there.

For whatever little it may be worth, my uninformed preference is for a
recasting of Explain in more contemporary terms (whether XML or GRS-1)
rather than the newly proposed init-response hack.  But hey, what do I
know?

	Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
	http://www.staff.tecc.co.uk/mike/
Received on Friday, 23 June 2000 05:07:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:21 GMT