• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?
• From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:38:53 -0500
• In-reply-to: <41A288A9.7020104@m...>
• Thread-index: AcTQ9rrvfzgFVsoOTTWy/d4NbE/StABTw5EQ

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

>> Why would it matter that a canonicalizer tool utilize an
>> XML Schema rather than a DTD?  Where would it make a difference?

>Such a canonicalizer would be nonconformant to the XML canonicalization 
>specification. 

Is it not time to update the XML canonicalization specification?  When
everyone was using DTDs then canonicalization of just {XML, DTD} pairs made
sense.  But now that many people are using XML Schemas it seems to me that
canonicalization needs to be upgraded to support {XML, XML-Schema} pairs.

Better yet, the canonicalization specification should be upgraded to handle
all 5 Validation Languages:

1. DTD
2. XML Schemas
3. RelaxNG
4. Schematron
5. OASIS CAM

That is, the canonical form of {XML, VL) should be the same (where VL = any
of the 5 Validation Languages listed above):

   {XML, VL} --------------> Canonical XML
               canonicalizer


Comments?  /Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why are XML crowds older?
• Next by Date: RE: Why are XML crowds older?
• Previous by thread: Re: Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?
• Next by thread: Re: Canonicalizer that uses XML Schemas (rather than DTDs)?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread