- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:01:36 +0200
- 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 UTC