On 03/02/16 21:46, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Justin Lecher (jlec) <j...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Could you please sum up the thread and come up with some precise >> question we should discuss or vote on. > > The question is: what language should we use for XML validation in the future? > > There are two main contenders: RELAX NG (with a compact and an XML > serialization) and XML Schema. Of course conversion between these > schema formats is possible, but the question is what the canonical > language should be and what other formats would be provided (and how). > > Summary: > > - I contended that RELAX NG compact serialization is more readable, > and that DTD and RELAX NG validation are equally fast. I don't have > much experience with XML Schema, but I do have a conversion tool for > RNC (compact RELAX NG) -> RNG (RELAX NG XML syntax). > - Michał has used both RELAX NG and XML Schema, and prefers the > latter. It's more popular, and it seems that cross-referencing things > is not supported (trivially) in RELAX NG, whereas it should be in XML > Schema. > - Robin prefers XML Schema, but can live with both. > - trang seems to be a pretty decent tool for schema conversion, but it > doesn't handle XML Schema as an input language (likely because of the > complexity of XML Schema). > - There is a standard for referring to RELAX NG or XML Schema schemas > from XML documents, which would be useful for tool authors. > - emacs nXML mode works only with RNC schema, which is a reason for > Ulrich to prefer it. > - Brian seems to like RNC for readability/flexibility reasons. > > I hope other will jump in if they feel I missed > something/misrepresented their opinions. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan >
Thanks Dirkjan for the summary. Justin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
