Re: XML Schema usage statistics (WAS: Draft minutes of 2009-05-12 TAG weekly)

FWIW, XHTML 2.0 now has XSD and XML DTD implementations as well, and we 
expect the XSD implementation to be the definitive base that we use for 
testing etc.  The RelaxNG implementation, while useful, was not what 
everyone in our community was asking for.

As an aside, we do have a draft document for XHTML Modularization via 
RelaxNG [1] if people are interested.  Not sure if it will ever make it 
out the door just due to time limitations, but the work is solid.

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml-m12n-relaxng-20080604

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> It would be interesting to have a comparison of the # of specifications 
>> that use XSD, RNC, or RNG as part of the spec text.
>>     
>
> Yes.  I've been working with some of my IBM contacts to see if we can get 
> information that would hold up as factual.  Based on early rough checks of 
> which standards groups are doing what, by far the most common choices we 
> see are to use either just XSD, or in quite a few cases, XSD for 
> structural constraints, with Schematron for higher level constraints 
> (business rules, I presume, but I haven't checked.)  RelaxNG is used as 
> the normative schema for a few standards that we found (ATOM, Docbook, 
> TEI, XHTML 2.0), but was far less common than either XSD or XSD+Schematron 
> based on the information we have so far.
>
> I understand that the above is too informal to be convincing, and I'm 
> trying to see whether we can get some information that might be a bit more 
> reliable.
>
>   
>> Plus ~1000 in RNC (Compact) format.
>>     
>
> OK.  On the other hand, I was somewhat amused to note that a few of the 
> hits on *.rng were actually for something to do with random number 
> generators (probably not enough to significantly skew the numbers, but I 
> got a chuckle out of it).  It's quite possible there are some false 
> positives for .xsd as well.
>
> Still, I think there's at least strong circumstantial evidence supporting 
> the intuition that XSD is, both with regard to schema documents available 
> from the Web using HTTP, and as a base technology used by other XML 
> standards, by far the predominant XML schema language, with Schematron not 
> uncommonly used as a supporting technology.  I'm quite confident that the 
> same would be true regarding business use of XML.
>
> Noah
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> 05/18/2009 04:25 AM
>  
>         To:     Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
>         cc:     "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah 
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Re: XML Schema usage statistics (WAS:  Draft 
> minutes of 2009-05-12  TAG  weekly)
>
>
> Paul Cotton wrote:
>   
>> From the draft May 12 TAG minutes:
>>
>>     
>>> raman: XML Schema hasn't worked out very well. I'm skeptical that it 
>>>       
>> really dominates
>> ...
>>     
>>> timbl: Skeptical about preponderance of XSD usage, would like to see 
>>>       
> some 
>   
>> figures
>>     
>>> noah: Any volunteers?
>>> (silence)
>>>       
>> Searching Google code for .xsd files (
>>     
> http://www.google.ca/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3A.*%5C.xsd%24) finds 
> 44,800 files.
>   
>> Searching Google code for .rng files (
>>     
> http://www.google.ca/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=file%3A.*%5C.rng%24) finds 
> only 3,000 files.
>   
>> Not necessarily a reliable survey but it certainly indicates that in 
>>     
> publicly visible code stores indexed by "Google code" .xsd file occurrence 
> is significantly greater than that of Relax NG files. 
>   
>> Personal opinion: I expect that the ratio in enterprise systems whose 
>>     
> code stores are not visible to a tool like "Google code" that this ratio 
> would be even more slanted towards XML Schema.
>   
>> /paulc
>> ...
>>     
>
> Plus ~1000 in RNC (Compact) format.
>
> It would be interesting to have a comparison of the # of specifications 
> that use XSD, RNC, or RNG as part of the spec text.
>
> BR, Julian
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com