Derick Rethans wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Derick Rethans wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Kore Nordmann wrote: >> >>> "The RELAX NG specifications have been developed within OASIS by the >>> RELAX NG Technical Committeee. RELAX NG is being developed into an >>> International Standard (ISO/IEC 19757-2) by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG1; it is >>> currently at the final stage of standardization." > > I've done a bit of research, and we can't use the "simple" version here, > as libxml can not use that for validation. The leaves us with either > XML Schema or RelaxNG (normal). I tried trang on our linguist files, and > the results for both schemas can be found as attachments. (Also the > corresponding .rnc). > > XML Schema is quite harder to read, even more if things get more > complex. I would therefore suggest to use RelaxNG as our schema > definition language. > > Let's vote on this: +1 for RelaxNG.
I didn't find any of RelaxNG or XML Schema easier to read (but maybe that's because I am not too much used to this yet:) ). But we should choose the format that: 1. has the power to express everything we need for a format specification 2. it is the easiest to read by human beings (or other inteligent life forms) 3. it is the easiest to be converted to other useful formats (DTD?) 4. doesn't require that all of us learn a new language (but that is not a big deal as we are smart enough for that) If everything can be expressed in RelaxNG and it can be converted 100% painless automagically to what we need, then RelaxNG gets my vote. Otherwise stick with XML Schema or EBNF. -- Alexandru Stanoi eZ Components System Developer eZ Systems | http://ez.no -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
