Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [rng-users] Lets standardize PI for associating Relax NG schema with XML document

Expand Messages
  • Jirka Kosek
    [I m forwarding message from Hussein because Yahoo is refusing his emails.] ... Subject: Re: Lets standardize PI for associating Relax NG schema with XML
    Message 1 of 96 , Jul 15, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      [I'm forwarding message from Hussein because Yahoo is refusing his emails.]

      -------- Original Message --------
      Subject: Re: Lets standardize PI for associating Relax NG schema with
      XML document
      Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:16:34 -0000
      From: hussein_shafie <hussein_shafie@...>
      To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@...>

      Hello,

      I'm Hussein SHAFIE, the project manager of XMLmind XML Editor.

      Here's what we have implemented in our XML editor (see
      http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/_distrib/doc/rngsupport/index.html):

      ====================================================================
      <?xxe-relaxng-schema
      location=anyURI
      [ name=non empty token ]?
      [ compactSyntax=boolean ]?
      [ encoding=any encoding supported by Java™ ]?
      ?>

      * location
      Required. Specifies the URL of the RELAX NG schema.

      This location may be resolved with the help of an XML catalog.

      * name
      A unique name for the RELAX NG schema (similar to the public ID of a
      DTD). Without such name, a RELAX NG schema cannot be cached.

      When possible, the ``target namespace'' of the RELAX NG schema is a
      sensible choice for this attribute.

      * compactSyntax
      Specifies that the RELAX NG schema is written using the compact
      syntax. Without this attribute, if location has a "rnc" extension, the
      schema is assumed to use the compact syntax, otherwise it is assumed
      to use the XML syntax.

      * encoding
      Specifies the character encoding used for a RELAX NG schema written
      using the compact syntax. Ignored if the XML syntax is used. Without
      this attribute, the schema is assumed to use the native encoding of
      the platform.

      Example:
      ---
      <?xxe-relaxng-schema name="-//OASIS//RELAX NG DocBook V4.3//EN"1
      location="http://www.docbook.org/rng/4.3/docbook.rnc"
      compactSyntax="true" encoding="US-ASCII" ?>
      ---

      ====================================================================

      All pseudo-attributes except "name" are really needed in order to have
      something that works.

      We do not take this proprietary processing-instruction very seriously
      because we firmly believe in the implicit association of the instance
      with its schemas (approaches such as Namespace Routing Language (NRL)
      -- http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html).

      However,
      * such processing-instructions is trivial to understand and therefore
      encourages experimenting with RELAX NG;
      * if a simple standard is specified, we'll of course replace our
      proprietary PI by the standard one.



      --
      Hussein SHAFIE, hussein@...,
      Pixware, Immeuble Capricorne, 23 rue Colbert,
      78180 Montigny Le Bretonneux, France,
      Phone: +33 (0)1 30 60 07 00, Fax: +33 (0)1 30 96 05 23
    • Robin Berjon
      ... Sorry to answer so late, I ve been on vacation. Just for the record, if you are going to be counting heads in the RNG community, I think I would be best
      Message 96 of 96 , Jul 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
        > If the camp trying to standardize PIs is not the majority
        > of the RELAX NG community, I do not think that PIs will take off.
        >
        > Here is my understanding of the current status. Please let me know
        > if I misinterprets somebody.
        >
        > For schema-associating PIs
        > Jirka Kosek
        > Robin Berjon
        > George Cristian Bina

        Sorry to answer so late, I've been on vacation. Just for the record, if
        you are going to be counting heads in the RNG community, I think I would
        be best counted as "neutral". My take on this is that a schema PI is
        just as bad an idea as a stylesheet PI, which is to say that it's most
        of the time a very bad idea (and in the absence of a processing model,
        dreadfully underspecified in its interactions with other specs at that),
        but *if* people are going to be doing it anyway (as seems to be the
        case) then I would prefer that there is a standard made by people who
        understand the issues and limitations of this approach rather than ad
        hoc proprietary options mades by people who are probably smart and
        probably understand some of the problems, but won't benefit from the
        head-banging that some form of community standard would get (or rather,
        is getting).

        --
        Robin Berjon
        Senior Research Scientist
        Expway, http://expway.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.