Home. 
.

transparent

transparent

transparent

Altova Mailing List Archives


Re: [xml-dev] Number of active public XML schemas

From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@--------.--->
To: Liam Quin <liam@--.--->
Date: 11/1/2004 8:12:00 PM
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:46:10 -0500
Liam Quin <liam@w...> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 11:36:51AM -0800, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> [...]
> > Not sure why people chose DTDs instead of XML Schemas, but I suspect 
> > it's either because they were coming from the SGML world or because
> > they 
> > started work before XML Schemas were a recommendation.
> 
> Or because they are easier to understand, or because there is wider
> support for them, or because they are more interoperable, or because
> books and tutorials on XML usually talk in detail about DTDS, which
> are, after all, part of the XML Specification, and often omit
> W3C XML Schemas altogether or give only an overview, as they are
> too complex to cover in a small (say, under 1,200-page) book in
> good detail, and in any case the writer may need to devote equal
> coverage to RelaxNG and Schematron.  Wow, was that a sentence?

Candidate for inclusion for W3C XML Schema next version?

Nah, too clear, too unambiguous.

Add: because they are defining documents and have no need for XML Schema's
strong [mis]typing, because they are reluctant to move to RNG yet or at
all (because it lacks W3C imprimatur, usually), or because they need only
some bits of the functionality provided by WXS and are unwilling to accept
the rest of the burden imposed with its use?

> W3C XML Schema support has been growing over the past couple of
> years, and interoperability seems to me to have been increasing,
> but I'd still suggest that people use a DTD if it satisfies
> their needs.

Interop seems to remain within a subset, with, as a recent thread pointed
out, even such relatively important things as UPA controversial and
unevenly supported.  Tool support for advanced functionality, such as
substitution groups, is weak (at best).  The verbosity of the format, as
compared to DTDs or RNG (especially presented as RNC) impedes learning,
maintenance, and advanced usage.  Most use (in my experience) is either
from the typed-information folks, or mandated by buyers whose knowledge of
the distinction between DTD and WXS can be summed up in the phrase "W3C
XML Schema is intended to replace DTDs".

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
I don't want what's best for you--
    where will I be when you've found it?
        I pray a lot about these bad feelings inside
            but I can't pray my way through or around it.
                -- Emily Saliers


transparent
Print
Mail
Like It
Disclaimer
.

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.

.
.

transparent

transparent