• From: "Michael Sokolov" <sokolov@i...>
• To: "'Glidden, Douglass A'" <Douglass.A.Glidden@b...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:00:51 -0500

To my way of thinking, the compact notation and relative simplicity is what
makes RNC/G extremely attractive.  I'm actually really glad it doesn't solve
your problem, Douglass!  No offense, but if it did, it would be as complex
as XSD.  I guess that's just to say that they seem to occupy different
niches.

In my first project using Relax, I was able to write schemas for my fairly
complex documents after reading documentation (James Clark's excellent
tutorial http://www.relaxng.org/compact-tutorial-20030326.html) for only
about an hour.  Admittedly my problems were much simpler than the ones you
describe - only simple inheritance schemes using extension (adding
additional elements and attributes in the subtype), but what was great was I
didn't have to become an expert to do it, and all my colleagues: programmers
and customers (content editors), are able to read the schemas with almost no
training at all.

-Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glidden, Douglass A [mailto:Douglass.A.Glidden@b...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:09 PM
....
> Hmmm...I must confess I didn't really explore the shorthand 
> version of RNG--perhaps I should take a look at it.  That is 
> effectively the same as the longhand way I was doing it, and 
> while it doesn't strike me as particularly elegant, it at 
> least takes up less space.
> 
> 
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Relax NC, was: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Glidden, Douglass A" <Douglass.A.Glidden@b...>

• References:
  • RE: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Glidden, Douglass A" <Douglass.A.Glidden@b...>