- From: J. David Eisenberg <catcode@catcode.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 13:20:51 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
- cc: Randy Nonay <randy.nonay@net-linx.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Dean Jackson wrote: > > On Thu, 08 May 2003, Randy Nonay wrote: > > > Isn't XSD a W3C standard? Why is it being abandoned willy nilly by various > > workgroups in favor of rng - which is not a W3C standard?? > > I don't think anyone was suggesting abandoning W3C XML Schema. > You have a strong point in implying that a W3C specification > should normatively use another W3C specification if possible. > So don't worry yet - I'm pretty confident there will be a > normative XSD of some form in SVG 1.2. > > Masayasu-san suggests providing multiple normative schemas. > This seems like a really good idea to me. > > The way we go about producing schemas (e.g. RNG converted to > XSD) isn't as important. Personally I find RNG > easier than XSD, but that's just me. > > Dean > I am currently teaching an introductory XML class, and I teach RNG instead of XSD. I tell my students that I do that because I don't want their heads to explode. Also, at the risk of repeating an oft-cited link, see James Clark's comparison of XSD and RNG, at http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html (My class notes about Relax NG are available via link from http://catcode.com/cit041x/ in case anyone is interested. Actually, they're at that URL even if nobody is interested.) -- J. David Eisenberg http://catcode.com/
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 14:22:47 UTC