Re: RELAX NG and W3C XML Schema

["James Clark" <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > I just had a look at draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-04.  Section
> > 4.6 says "XML Schema should be used as the formalism in the absence of
> > clearly stated reasons to choose another."  I strongly disagree with
> > this recommendation.
> >
> > I believe RELAX NG is preferable in many situations to XML Schema and
> > should receive at least equal billing.  Concretely, I propose in the
> > sentence above changing "XML Schema" to "XML Schema or RELAX NG".
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier note, Larry, Marshall, and I have been having
> an off-list discussion to address this proposal.  Given that there's been
a
> lot of debate around the topic our preference would be to simply remove
the
> recommendation sentence quoted above from section 4.6 while continuing to
> acknowledge the issues.
>
> I'll also fix the text describing Schematron, DSDL, and RELAX-NG,
indicating
> that part of the motivation for their development is/was to address issues
> with XML Schema.  Is that a reasonable compromise?

Yes, that seems reasonable to me.  Thanks for listening.

You might also want to fix the following sentence in Section 3 to avoid
mentioning XML Schemas exclusively: "Specification encoding: XML schemas
(defined in [11] and [12]) are themselves represented in XML." Note that
there is a non-XML, compact syntax for RELAX NG under development.

James