[Nmc-wg] Review of documents

[Jason Zurawski]

>>>> 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.


I don't feel strongly about this for either case.  We can add the XSD 
representation to the Apendix and show both if there is interest, or we 
can go with just one.  I would prefer to stick with RELAX since this 
represents the physical work we did (not a mechanical translation).

-jason