Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Liam, On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Liam Quin <liam@w...> wrote: > Speaking as W3C XML Activity Lead :-) I don't see a reason to > give XSD special status in that way. No problems :) That's fair enough for me. > W3C XSD has a lot of uses, and works well if you are also > using XSLT 2, XQuery, Web Services or other specifications > where the XSD support is well-integrated. Â This doesn't in > any way preclude using RelaxNG, DTDs, Schematron, or any > other sort of validation, and it's not really the place of > the XML specification to give a list of other technologies > that are used with it or build on it. I agree with this. I was actually not forcing a point of view, to really specify something like XSD, RelaxNG or other XML validation technology into the XML spec. I just find specification of a statement like, "an XML document is valid, if it's valid according to a DTD" in the XML spec, confusing given the existence now, of other XML validation technologies like XSD et al. As you have suggested below, refactoring the XML spec and separating DTD into a separate document looks a reasonable solution to this problem, and would dispel the confusion which user's seemingly have when they read the terms "validation" and DTD in the most recent XML specs. > As Tim and others said, DTDs are in the XML specification for > historical reasons. I appreciate this. It's good that, something like this existed in the early days of XML (that was a nice innovation, in the absence of anything else, as we speak of XSD and other validation technologies, as of today). But now, the XML validation technologies, are in a different paradigm and I guess, the XML and related specs should explain the relationship between XML markup and it's validation, reflecting the current world we are living in :) IMHO, it's fine if we rearchitect the XML specs, as you suggested to achieve this clarity for users. > If we had the resources, I can certainly > imagine refactoring XML 1.0 to put DTDs into a separate document, > and to bring into that document namespaces and xml:base and > maybe others. But the work of doing that is much greater than > it sounds -- making sure the text retains the same meaning, > and even that documents referring to specific productoins in the > EBNF grammar are not broken as a result. I hope this can happen. Perhaps, a work to create drafts for such a architectural breakup of XML specs, can begin :) > So I don't expect much enthusiasm for making a new edition of > XML to make the Informative References include XSD, but > please don't take that as a negative statement about XSD :-) I appreciate your speaking about this topic, and supporting few of my points :) -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
