You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Andrew Savory <an...@luminas.co.uk> on 2003/10/09 18:42:04 UTC
DTDs vs. Schemas
Hi,
I've been playing around with the Forrest DTD, and have hit upon the
limitation of having no W3 XML Schema for it. (I need namespaces, so DTDs
are no use to me.)
Before I spend time converting the current DTDs to schemas, does anyone
already have some, and if so, could they commit them to CVS?
Cheers,
Andrew.
--
Andrew Savory Email: andrew@luminas.co.uk
Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/ Web: www.luminas.co.uk
Re: DTDs vs. Schemas
Posted by Eric BURGHARD <eb...@free.fr>.
Le Vendredi 10 Octobre 2003 16:39, Johan Kok a écrit :
> +1 for RelaxNG
>
Some editors (http://www.oxygenxml.com) already do in-line completion with
RelaxNG, and other will follow. So +1 for RelaxNG
RE: DTDs vs. Schemas
Posted by Johan Kok <jk...@messianic.dyndns.org>.
+1 for RelaxNG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Nicola Ken Barozzi
> Sent: 10 October 2003 02:26
> To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: DTDs vs. Schemas
>
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> ...
> > We have talked in the past about this dilemma (here and cocoon-dev).
> > One other proposed technology was RELAX NG. From memory we talked
> > about holding an authoritative RNG and generating DTDs and stuff.
>
> +1 from me to have RelaxNG used.
>
> > Some past discussion (there is much more) ...
> >
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102887074620179
> > [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset
> of the XHTML
> > 2.0 proposal?
> > 9 Aug 2002
>
> Yes, I remember, XHTML2 has a RelaxNG version available.
>
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=103994976707745
> > Re: [PROPOSAL] DTD Versioning (Re: Should href be required on link
> > 15 Dec 2002
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Re: DTDs vs. Schemas
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
...
> We have talked in the past about this dilemma (here and cocoon-dev).
> One other proposed technology was RELAX NG. From memory we talked
> about holding an authoritative RNG and generating DTDs and stuff.
+1 from me to have RelaxNG used.
> Some past discussion (there is much more) ...
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102887074620179
> [RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of the XHTML
> 2.0 proposal?
> 9 Aug 2002
Yes, I remember, XHTML2 has a RelaxNG version available.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=103994976707745
> Re: [PROPOSAL] DTD Versioning (Re: Should href be required on link
> 15 Dec 2002
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: DTDs vs. Schemas
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> J.Pietschmann wrote:
>
> > Andrew Savory wrote:
> >
> >> I've been playing around with the Forrest DTD, and have hit upon the
> >> limitation of having no W3 XML Schema for it. (I need namespaces, so DTDs
> >> are no use to me.)
> >>
> >> Before I spend time converting the current DTDs to schemas, does anyone
> >> already have some, and if so, could they commit them to CVS?
> >
> > You should take a look at the CyberNeko DTD converter:
> > http://www.apache.org/~andyc/neko/doc/index.html
> > or Trang
> > http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/trang.html
> >
> > Neither is an install&go but still much simpler than to rewrite
> > moderatly complex DTDs as WXS by hand.
>
> We need to have at least two version, because DTDs are a bonus for
> editors, and we need something else for multi-namespace validation.
>
> What do you suggest we do? I thought that we shouold keep one version
> hand-written and the other automatically converted. In this way we have
> schemas for normal validation and automatically-generated DTDs for
> editors and for people using single-namespace validation.
>
> Suggestions?
We have talked in the past about this dilemma (here and cocoon-dev).
One other proposed technology was RELAX NG. From memory we talked
about holding an authoritative RNG and generating DTDs and stuff.
Some past discussion (there is much more) ...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=102887074620179
[RT] Instead of XHTML 1.0, why don't we implement a subset of the XHTML
2.0 proposal?
9 Aug 2002
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=103994976707745
Re: [PROPOSAL] DTD Versioning (Re: Should href be required on link
15 Dec 2002
--David
Re: DTDs vs. Schemas
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Andrew Savory wrote:
>
>> I've been playing around with the Forrest DTD, and have hit upon the
>> limitation of having no W3 XML Schema for it. (I need namespaces, so DTDs
>> are no use to me.)
>>
>> Before I spend time converting the current DTDs to schemas, does anyone
>> already have some, and if so, could they commit them to CVS?
>
> You should take a look at the CyberNeko DTD converter:
> http://www.apache.org/~andyc/neko/doc/index.html
> or Trang
> http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/trang.html
>
> Neither is an install&go but still much simpler than to rewrite
> moderatly complex DTDs as WXS by hand.
We need to have at least two version, because DTDs are a bonus for
editors, and we need something else for multi-namespace validation.
What do you suggest we do? I thought that we shouold keep one version
hand-written and the other automatically converted. In this way we have
schemas for normal validation and automatically-generated DTDs for
editors and for people using single-namespace validation.
Suggestions?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: DTDs vs. Schemas
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Andrew Savory wrote:
> I've been playing around with the Forrest DTD, and have hit upon the
> limitation of having no W3 XML Schema for it. (I need namespaces, so DTDs
> are no use to me.)
>
> Before I spend time converting the current DTDs to schemas, does anyone
> already have some, and if so, could they commit them to CVS?
You should take a look at the CyberNeko DTD converter:
http://www.apache.org/~andyc/neko/doc/index.html
or Trang
http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/trang.html
Neither is an install&go but still much simpler than to rewrite
moderatly complex DTDs as WXS by hand.
J.Pietschmann