Re: "Converting DTDs (and DTD developers) to RELAX NG schemas" paper

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:13:46AM -0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Bob, I'm being faced in two cases with an XSD | Relax NG as master problem.
> I'm convinced its not a technical decision (almost certainly in one case)
> but
> more of a political one. A perception that the majority are using W3C XSD,
> hence we should, or MS use it, it must be right. 
> 
>   I recall James spoke at one time of the two schema's together, but I don't
> 
> have a url.

  Well there is the relatively harsh (but fair at the time) comparison
he posted on the ietf-xml-use mailing list
  http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html

Though the XML Schemas implementation have improved since, still
a lot of the argumentation still makes a lot of sense from a
technical viewpoint IMHO.

> Has anyone collated a comparison to help people choosing between
> the two? What are the objections to having XSD as the master, and using
> relax ng as and when via trang? Is that viable?

  Since it's far far easier to validate the semantic of a Relax-NG
Schemas it seems to me that doing the opposite way (i.e. having
the Relax-NG master and relying on automatic generation for the XSD)
is more likely to garantee the semantic of both schemas,

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
[email protected]  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/