• From: rbourret@d... (Ron Bourret)
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:16:23 +0200

Tim Bray wrote:

> In fact *every* attempt so far
> (the old DSD stuff, XML-Data, etc) to express content models in XML has
> come up verbose and unreadable compared to good ol' 8879 DTD notation.
> I think there's a better way, and want to see what xml-dev can come up 
> with. -Tim

Regardless of whether XSchema rivals DTD notation for brevity and clarity, we 
still need it.  The compelling reason for XSchema is not besting the readability 
of DTD notation -- a visual schema editor is far clearer than both -- but making 
schema information available through XML tools (which are numerous) rather than 
DTD tools (which are not).

For this reason, I would vote against directly using RDF in XSchema, as it means 
we will have designed something we can't use.

-- Ron Bourret

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSchema Question 1: RDF
    • From: Alain DESEINE <alain@c...>

• Prev by Date: Proposed draft of XSchema document available
• Next by Date: Re: XSchema Question 2: Namespaces
• Previous by thread: Re: XSchema Question 1: RDF
• Next by thread: Re: XSchema Question 1: RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread