[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ecrit] FW: [NENA-ltd] LoST

In the IETF RAI area, there is a strong consensus towards moving toward Relax NG and away from XML Schema. This is also echoed by many of the members of the IETF's XML Directorate, most notably Tim Bray -- one of the authors of XML.

To be even more specific, the experience within IETF standards with XML Schema has exposed two recurring issues that are solved by Relax NG: 1) The UPA restriction, and 2) readability of XSDs.

And to your specific points about existing IETF standards and existing software:

1) It is true that a lot of IETF standards use XML Schema. That is due in part to the fact that XML Schema has been around longer, but also of the mistaken belief that BCP 70 mandated the use of XML Schema in IETF RFCs. BCP 70 actually says no such thing, but this misperception existed for quite some time until the XML Directorate made the clarification.

2) At present, there does exist more software that uses XML Schema than Relax NG. But at one time there was also very little software for XML Schema. As Relax NG heads through the ISO standardization process and more IETF standards emerge that use Relax NG, more software supporting it will appear.

-andy



On Dec 1, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Marc Linsner wrote:

The NENA Long Term Definition work group has been closely following the LoST
work evidenced by early requirements Terry's concerns a week or two ago.

I again queried that group to see if they have any outstanding issues with
Terry's concerns, or any additional. Hence I forwarded below (with
permission) Pierre's question about Relax NG.

Thanks,

-Marc-

-----Original Message-----
From: Desjardins, Pierre [mailto:pdesjardins at positron911.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Marc Linsner; nena-ltd at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: RE: [NENA-ltd] LoST

Marc,

I have no further issues with regards to Terry's concerns, however I did
voice a negative comment about the choice of RELAX NG as the schema language
for defining LoST messages.

I have been around XML for a very long time and this is not about the merits
of one schema language over another but rather about making life easier for
future implementers.

Like it or not, W3C XML Schema (WXS) is the mainstream XML schema language
and it shows in the multiplicity and diversity of tools out there
(commercial or otherwise).

The geopriv schemas were are all published using WXS which I believe favored
accelerated adoption. It seems to me that we all want the same benefit for
LoST.

I am willing to help with putting a WXS version together -- I may even be
able to come up with a skeleton schema this weekend...

What do you think?

/Pier

-----Original Message-----
From: nena-ltd-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:nena-ltd-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Linsner
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:30 AM
To: nena-ltd at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [NENA-ltd] LoST

All,

Sorry I couldn't make yesterday's call.

I am curious if discussion took place wrt Terry's questions/ concerns about
LoST. Is this community satisfied with responses to those concerns? Are
there still open issues?


Thanks,

-Marc-
_______________________________________________
Nena-ltd mailing list
Nena-ltd at cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/nena-ltd

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit