• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:28:40 -0800
• In-reply-to: <4188B213.50903@e...>
• References: <F4AA32DE20F3D211BCB90050044B6DD0B7F761@CSB> <4188B213.50903@e...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

All good reasons to write XML Schemas in XML, and certainly the reason
that this was always an article of faith for me.

But here's another way to ask the question. Are there enough people for
whom a non-XML syntax for XML Schemas would be useful that it's worth
deriving such a thing? After all, the general feeling on this list the
other day was that the shorthand form of Relax NG was easier and more
widely used than the XML form.

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@c...>
  • RE: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• References:
  • R: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: Chizzolini Stefano <chist@c...>
  • dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Numberof active public XML schemas
    • From: Burak Emir <Burak.Emir@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
• Next by Date: Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
• Previous by thread: Re: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
• Next by thread: RE: dynamically generated XML Schema?! Re: R: Number of active public XML schemas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread