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
  • Bob Foster
    ... Portability? In user examples I ve seen, most schema location URIs are either at well-known network locations, e.g., web-xml, or file: URIs that aren t the
    Message 1 of 96 , Jul 3, 2005
      George Cristian Bina wrote:
      > The main reason for having a PI is the *portability*.

      Portability? In user examples I've seen, most schema location URIs are
      either at well-known network locations, e.g., web-xml, or file: URIs
      that aren't the least bit portable.

      > Also the external association cannot handle for instance
      > cases when a user wants to specify that a document should be associated
      > with a lite version of the main schema.

      Why not?

      > Tools will always have the possibility to provide a "Validate with..."
      > action and allow the user to specify the schema externally, or to use
      > the external association rules.

      Exactly, so the PI isn't needed.

      Bob Foster
    • 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
        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.