[Nmc-wg] Review of documents

[Roman Lapacz]

Jason Zurawski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

Definitely one. I prefer relaxng but the doc is not for me but for all 
who would like to get to know the protocol. If we see that much more 
people around us are familiar with xsd then this should be chosen. 
Comments from all NMC participants and their observations are welcome.

Roman

>   I would prefer to stick with RELAX since this 
> represents the physical work we did (not a mechanical translation).
>
> -jason
> _______________________________________________
> Nmc-wg mailing list
> Nmc-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
>