On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Alexandru Stanoi wrote: > 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?)
DTDs can only encode a subset on what XMLSchema and RelaxNG can describe. > 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. EBNF can't be used to automatically validate XML, so that's a "no-no". regards, Derick -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
