On 07/05/2007 05:05 PM Kore Nordmann wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 17:53 +0300, Kirill Subbotin wrote:
>> Tobias Schlitt wrote: >>> Just for curiosity: Why are you using such an EBNF-like format instead >>> of a standardized way for describing XML formats, for example >>> XML-Schema? We need that later, anyway, so it sounds logical to me to >>> use it right from the start. Or am I wrong? >> The reasons were that schemas are harder to read, and too many things were >> unclear to >> create it. So I've decided to use simplified form to get more responses on >> issues. >> (but even in this case I'm getting not very much of them) >> But now I'm going to create a real scheme, as anyway there is not much >> feedback. > In this case you may want to consider using the compact syntax from > RelaxNG, which es imho really easy to read: > http://relaxng.org/compact-tutorial-20030326.html While this discussion does not really belong to this thread: We should standardize the way we want to specify XML formats. I still insist on XML-Schema, since it is a W3C recommendation. The short format of RelaxNG might be a bit easier to read/write, but it is not an official standard, or am I wrong? Regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
