Subject:
|
Re: Another LENNI Question (geek alert)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:43:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3165 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> My only real concern right now would be how stable is XSD? I keep running across
> people trashing it on the various blog sites. But I don't know if they're onto
> something, or just being uppity. It's so hard to tell, with all the 'tude being
> slung around.
We at Ascential are seeing our customers, and the big ecommerce standards
bodies, shifting away from DTDs and towards schema definitions for XML
standards. The major reasons given are that the schema definition is much more
expressive than a DTD and that it it itself valid XML, which a DTD isn't.
For instance, OASIS ( http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php )
seems to mostly or exclusively use schema rather than DTD, and in many cases,
could not express all the conditionality and optionality the standard
encompasses in a DTD.
WSDL seems to be only informally specified but seems more schema like.
http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
On the other hand cXML still seems to use a DTD: http://www.cxml.org/
If you can specify everything in a DTD I would suggest you use it, though, as
schemas tend to be proper supersets of DTD.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Another LENNI Question (geek alert)
|
| (...) Right, no need to force software updates every time we add to the list. Hopefully it'll be all back-end. My only real concern right now would be how stable is XSD? I keep running across people trashing it on the various blog sites. But I don't (...) (20 years ago, 12-Sep-04, to lugnet.publish)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
