[Nmc-wg] Review of documents

[Roman Lapacz]

Candido Rodriguez Montes wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
>
>   
>> Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2010-01-20, o godz. 19:28, przez Michael
>> Bischoff:
>>
>>     
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Are you sure Nina? Afaik a WSDL can be defined with a single method
>>> that takes a document and define that the document needs to have a
>>> NMWG schema?
>>>
>>> Alike: http://www.w3.org/2001/04/wsws-proceedings/uche/wsdl.html
>>>
>>> Though it does require a xsd or other supported schema type (eg not
>>> relaxng). Now relaxng can be transformed but the transformation isn't
>>> formal/unambiguous/two-way, or differently put if you transform from
>>> relaxng to xsd and back you are not guaranteed to end up with the  
>>> same
>>> relaxng document. This is because some relaxng concepts can't be
>>> mapped completely into xsd. Now afaik we don't make use of such
>>> concepts now but it could create problems in the future.
>>>
>>> As I frequently hear that there is no objection to particular
>>> preference
>>> for xsd/relaxng from a theoretical standpoint (I know WG prefers
>>> relaxng) Why not switch to xsd for practial reasons?
>>>       
>> Hmm, it's not a bad idea to switch from relaxng to xsd in nmc
>> documents (although I like more the former). Most documentations of
>> xml schemas I've seen were done with xsd.
>>     
>
> I'm not an expert in relaxng... so, is it more powerful than xsd?
> Sorry about that "stupid" question... maybe it's like discussing if  
> you should install Debian or Ubuntu... :-D
>   

For me relaxng is more readable than xsd.

Roman