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

["Brian Rosen" <br at brianrosen.net>]

I checked with our developers.  We use xerces, gSOAP and xmlspy.  None of
them support Relax NG as far as I can determine.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy at hxr.us]
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:50 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan) '; 'Marc Linsner'; '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