• From: Betty Harvey <harvey@e...>
• To: Razvan MIHAIU <xml.dev.ro@g...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:14:37 -0400 (EDT)

Unless you have a requirement to be compliant with a standard then it 
probably would be easier to create a schema (whichever flavor suits your
fancy) that meets your requirements would be easier than trying to
adapt your simplified version with the Q&T specification.

I have developed a very simple XML schema for my own purposes for 
developing questionaires and an XSLT to transform it to XForms.  This is a 
relatively simple process and is an easier endeavor than trying to use 
Q&T.  Like most complicated specifications commercial tools are being 
developed to support Q&T.

Good luck!

Betty

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Razvan MIHAIU wrote:

> Michael Kay wrote:
>>> This looks like what I need, but it is quite complicated... I was expected 
>>> something simpler.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Generic schemas are always more complicated than you expect. That's because
>> your requirements are a subset of the requirements of the community as a
>> whole, often quite a small subset. A published generic schema will tend to
>> be the union of everyone's requirements.
>> 
>   In that case it might be better to develop my own "quick" version. I will 
> have to explain a small set of rules to the partner sites, otherwise I need 
> to explain this generic specification which is much more complex.
>
>   I am thinking what is the best trade-off.
>
>
> Regards,
> Razvan N.
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML dictionary - second try
    • From: Razvan MIHAIU <xml.dev.ro@g...>

• References:
  • RE: XML dictionary - second try
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: XML dictionary - second try
    • From: Razvan MIHAIU <xml.dev.ro@g...>