Hi Lou, I have a similar impression as Jirka, there was no clear resolution to this problem after that discussion. What I remember as the main issue against the PI was that people will have the impression that if a tool does not support the PI then that tool is broken.
In the end we already offered a PI to do the association, and so did other tools - the idea with a "standard"/agreed PI was that for users it will be easier to have documents portable between different tools. And if a tool does not need the PI to find the schema, that's great, it can just ignore it. It is not like I am pro PI and against associating the schema outside the document - I just think each should be able to decide to work as he likes and the tools should support both. Best Regards, George --------------------------------------------------------------------- George Cristian Bina <oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger http://www.oxygenxml.com Jirka Kosek wrote: > louburnard wrote: > >> According to the edw89 draft the proposed mechanism >> * should be optional, ignorable, and over-ridable >> * should not be TEI-specific >> >> If the first is a serious requirement, I cannot see any point in the >> proposal at all. > > The same is true for xsi:schemaLocation and to some extent for !DOCTYPE. > The difference between proposed <?schema?> PI and > !DOCTYPE/xsi:schemaLocation is that <?schema is general and works with > any schema language. Moreover it doesn't rely on legacy stuff (!DOCTYPE) > and it doesn't force you to modify real content of document > (elements/attributes/text nodes). PI allows attachment of more then one > schema. > > So if we could agree on fact that there is a need for attaching schema > to document then <?schema is superior to mechanisms that are already in > wide use. > >> Given that the proposal has already been discussed and failed to >> persuade one expert forum (the rng users group), why resurrect it now? > > That's your perception. My perception is that there are serious > requirements coming at least from from DocBook, TEI and XHTML which > can't be addressed with current standards for schema association. This > argument was silently ignored by people who were against this proposal, > they haven't offered any solution to the problem of having several > schemas for a single namespace. > > Instead they persisted on idea of specifying schema externally. Since > this discussion passed NVDL standard was introduced and implemented. But > even NVDL (of which I'm big fan) doesn't solve this problem. > > So there are several possible ways to proceed: > > 1. Simply ignore requirements coming from real-life problems > > 2. Extend NVDL to cover those requirements (but this would be quite big > change to NVDL, which I do not think happen at least in a short term). > > 3. Reach agreement on <?schema?>. All users who need this functionality > will benefit from a single syntax supported by growing plate of tools. > > 4. Do not reach agreement on schema. Users of TEI will have > <?tei-schema, users of DocBook will have <?docbook-schema, .... Both > tools vendors and users will be disgusted. > > To me it seems that if we do not want to hide our heads in sand (1.), we > should do 3. and in a long term we can try to make 2. happen. > >> For the record, I think this is a waste of time. The most I think we >> should do in TEI P5 is to add a few sentences to SG (introductory >> chapter on XML) explaining how a schema might be associated with an >> instance, possibly giving the rationale for not doing it. And I'm not >> even sure about that. > > OK, how do you then will differentiate between TEI and TEI-lite and how > do you will associate RELAX NG schema to TEI instance? Just for the > record. ;-D > > > Jirka > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rng-users/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rng-users/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
