- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 01:34:13 +0200
- To: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
On Thursday, May 8, 2003, 12:46:32 AM, Tobias wrote: TR> The SVG WG (its chair actually) said it would like to choose Relax NG as TR> schema format for the master schema: TR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2003Apr/0096.html , TR> but sees issues. TR> Now XHTML went with RNG as main (and currently exclusive) format: TR> [...] TR> C. XHTML RELAX NG Module Implementations TR> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030506/relax_module_defs.html#a_relaxng_module_defs Yes and just read it - its so simple and clear. There are various ways of writing RNG, one is the heavily nested, one big blob way, another is the 'dtd like' small definitions way; which i prefer and which this modularization uses. Comparing this RNG modularization to the DTD modularization though, its also apparent how much cruft is simply not needed because the namespace support in RNG is simple and elegant whereas the namespace hacks that one uses in DTDs are a succession of flaming hoops to jump though. TR> Perhaps Relax NG is a candidate format for the main SVG schema? Yes; because then we can form XHTML2+SVG profiles with ease. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 19:34:21 UTC