Re: [NGO] FW: [XCON] WG Issues with XML Schema

[Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka at cesnet.cz>]

Hi,

whilst this discussion in XCON may be interesting, I think for all
practical purposes (including netconf) it is necessary to face the fact
that there are two widely used schema languages and allow people express
their data models in either XSD or RELAX NG. It is more important that
the schemas be written with reasonable modularity and well documented -
I suggest here an analogy to Knuth's literate programming where the
documentation is embedded directly in the schema.

Lada

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) píše v Út 20. 03. 2007 v 19:35 +0200:
>  If anybody cares to contribute to this discussion in the XCON WG. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Cordell [mailto:pete at tech-know-ware.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: xcon at ietf.org
> Subject: [XCON] WG Issues with XML Schema
> 
> I hope this isn't a mis-use of this list, but.....
> 
> As you may know, W3C XML Schema is in the process of being extended to
> version 1.1.  I know that XCON started out using XML Schema, but has
> since moved more towards Relax-NG.
> 
> I'm hoping that those making that change of direction will share with me
> their motivation for making that decision.  My intention would be, if
> appropriate, to share any gathered opinions with the XSD 1.1 working
> group (probably in some summarized form).  (BTW - Just to be clear, I'm
> not on the
> WG.)
> 
> For example, is XML schema just too difficult to learn?  Is the
> versioning and extensibility of elements, attributes and enumerations
> too restricted? 
> Were there constraints on your syntax that you couldn't (readily)
> express using schema?  What else?
> 
> My motivation for doing this is that I feel that the usage scenarios for
> XCON, SIP and other similar IETF style protocols are very different from
> the sorts of use-cases that the majority of the W3C members are familiar
> with, and hence the requirements are under represented.  There's a
> chance that by giving me feedback, XSD 1.1 will do a better job of
> meeting the needs of working groups in the IETF.
> 
> I'm interested to hearing from anybody involved in schema work, whether
> it be in XCON, SIP, SIPPING, AVT, some other IETF group, or for private
> purposes.  However, I'm only posting this message to the XCON list in
> the hope this will capture most of the feedback (the membership of the
> previously mentioned groups is probably much the same anyway).
> 
> Depending on what you think is appropriate, you can either reply to the
> list, or direct to me.
> 
> Many, many thanks for you help in trying to make XSD 1.1. better!
> 
> Pete.
> --
> =============================================
> Pete Cordell
> Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
> for XML to C++ data binding visit
> http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
> http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> NGO at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C


_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo