1 |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Justin Lecher (jlec) <jlec@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Could you please sum up the thread and come up with some precise |
3 |
> question we should discuss or vote on. |
4 |
|
5 |
The question is: what language should we use for XML validation in the future? |
6 |
|
7 |
There are two main contenders: RELAX NG (with a compact and an XML |
8 |
serialization) and XML Schema. Of course conversion between these |
9 |
schema formats is possible, but the question is what the canonical |
10 |
language should be and what other formats would be provided (and how). |
11 |
|
12 |
Summary: |
13 |
|
14 |
- I contended that RELAX NG compact serialization is more readable, |
15 |
and that DTD and RELAX NG validation are equally fast. I don't have |
16 |
much experience with XML Schema, but I do have a conversion tool for |
17 |
RNC (compact RELAX NG) -> RNG (RELAX NG XML syntax). |
18 |
- MichaĆ has used both RELAX NG and XML Schema, and prefers the |
19 |
latter. It's more popular, and it seems that cross-referencing things |
20 |
is not supported (trivially) in RELAX NG, whereas it should be in XML |
21 |
Schema. |
22 |
- Robin prefers XML Schema, but can live with both. |
23 |
- trang seems to be a pretty decent tool for schema conversion, but it |
24 |
doesn't handle XML Schema as an input language (likely because of the |
25 |
complexity of XML Schema). |
26 |
- There is a standard for referring to RELAX NG or XML Schema schemas |
27 |
from XML documents, which would be useful for tool authors. |
28 |
- emacs nXML mode works only with RNC schema, which is a reason for |
29 |
Ulrich to prefer it. |
30 |
- Brian seems to like RNC for readability/flexibility reasons. |
31 |
|
32 |
I hope other will jump in if they feel I missed |
33 |
something/misrepresented their opinions. |
34 |
|
35 |
Cheers, |
36 |
|
37 |
Dirkjan |