[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Ecrit] FW: [NENA-ltd] LoST
For better or worst, XML Schema is an integral and valuable component of
many other XML technology standards and is leveraged in all important
web services development & delivery platforms. Editor and validator
availability is but one aspect of the more general issue -- how the
schema language integrates with other XML-based technologies is what
counts when we are talking about encouraging implementations -- which is
by no means LoST specific.
/Pier
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy at hxr.us]
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:50 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Andy Bierman'; ecrit at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] FW: [NENA-ltd] LoST
The tool issue is a bit of FUD, IMO. It is still possible to use SAX or
DOM or pull APIs just like with XML Schemas and DTDs and all the other
types XML schema languages. There is nothing about Relax NG that
requires an implementation to use a special XML parser. The tools
people are talking about are normally code generators, which are usually
the hallmark of sloppy programming practices (my opinion, but I've seen
it a lot). I certainly would hope that anyone serious about fielding
LoST knows how XML works and does not have to rely on
such crutches. I've had no trouble finding tools for validation.
And both my desktop XML editors support Relax NG, one supporting it much
better than XML Schema.
BTW, regarding your statement about "We're not XML developers."
Well, you better understand it. Just like you better have an
understanding of how TCP/IP works too. Or would you prefer that people
writing software be able to stand behind statements like "We're not
Internet applications developers."
-andy
On Dec 2, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> And what is their conclusion?
>
> Andy's answer is a bit troubling. We're not XML developers, XML is
> a "tool"
> (distinguishing from the tools we use with XML) to us. We get
> disadvantaged
> when we are early adopters of new XML thingies. The XML
> development tools
> probably matter more than the UPA restriction, and readability is
> in the eye
> of the beholder: to anyone who has been looking at XML schemas for
> the last
> several years, Relax NG is definitely not more readable. Now, I
> wouldn't
> really use the latter as an excuse to NOT switch to a new form,
> because that
> would keep us on obsolete tools, but it is also not a compelling
> reason to
> switch.
>
> I had thought the development tools were okay with Relax NG. If
> that is not
> the case, then I question whether we should be using it.
_______________________________________________
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