W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Forcing a certain document element

From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:00:14 +0100
Message-ID: <3A60272E.F8E3C488@dyomedea.com>
CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Robert Braddock wrote:
> > Then you accept to be to be locked with W3C XML Schema and it's a still
> > deeper difference of perspective :) ...
> Quite so. For me, the _idea_ of XML-Schema is the obvious evolutionary step
> from (static) DTDs of SGML. I'm happy to use it in that sense and remove
> DTDs from my processing (which mainly covers text documents, not "raw data"
> or embedded processing). I'm overall pretty dissatisfied with XML-Schema,
> but it does at least cover DTDs plus scoping and namespaces. In fact, what
> I'm using of it is almost identical to an SGML document type I previously
> made to represent DTDs in SGML. So, I get that and stay aligned with the
> "Standards," which is something I'd like to value. (It's also part of why
> I'm dissatisfied with it--I was using it 5 years ago.)

There is a difference, although not quite technical, though...

While there was a rather monolithic SGML standard, there are many XML
specifications, recommendations and standard and W3C XML schema isn't a
part of XML 1.0.

And even in the more specific area of XML schema languages there are 2
competing "standards" (Relax/ISO and W3C/XML Schema).

This means that there is now a choice and I have enjoyed the way Norm
Walsh has published together W3C XML Schema, Relax and TREX schemas in
addition to the DocBook DTDs.

Following the split done by the W3C XML Schema specification between
structure and types, TREX is going a step further and demonstrates that
these 2 parts (structure and types) are almost independent.

Which means that the life might even get more difficult for designers
who might in the future have to chose the best combination of a XML
structure schema language and a XML datatypes schema language :) ...

> I agree pretty completely with what you said, except of course your
> reference to me--but I see where that came from and appreciate the
> opportunity to re-examine the limitations I've chosen ;)

Then the rant wasn't targeted against you :) 

> Robert Braddock

Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 04:58:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:49 UTC