> > I tend to think the issue is a philosophical one.□ I feel RELAX NG's > > aesthetic as "text first, data incidentally."□ That goes well at odds > > with the idea of rigidly mapping XML structures to programmatic > > structures, which is the essence of most data binding tools. > > is what I was trying to say. I do think design of RelaxNG, and its strength, > are >related to challenges in using it for data binding. > > XML Schema, on the other hand, has lots of weaknesses regarding "traditional > XML" >(document-oriented, not data), due to its focus on data-oriented use >cases. But for data binding these are strengths.
As far as I know, every databinding tool for XSD actually handles a subset of W3C XML Schema. Although it is true that some features of RELAX NG (such as ambigous grammars) make data binding difficult, it is certainly possible to design a small subset of RELAX NG, which is good enough for handling data and friendly to data binding. A completely different (and grammartical) approach for data biding is RelaxNGCC. It also uses a subset of RELAX NG. https://relaxngcc.dev.java.net/ Cheers, Makoto
