- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:51:47 -0700
- To: julian.reschke@gmx.de
- Cc: Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, www-tag@w3.org
It would also be enlightening to find out how many of those XSD files were generated from rng/ files. I know for a fact that many groups inside W3C routinely produce their obligatory xsd schema for their specs by first creating rng files. Julian Reschke writes: > 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 -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 22:52:31 UTC