Xml Mailing List: Re: It's input time guys.

[David Frascone (dave]

I understand now.  But, I think we only need to document the format of the
dictionary, in either DTD or in Schema.  Having both would lead to
confusion, right?  (Or, is schema an extension of dtd?)

What I mean is, the document has many DTD specific entries in it, 
defining <Elements>, etc.  Is the schema identical, or is it a different
syntax?

If it is an identical syntax, with the schema being an extension to the
DTD syntax, then I think we should have both, and maintain two free copies
on the net (one DTD, and one Schema).

But, if they are different, syntatically, then we should stick to the DTD.
Having two drastically different definations of the same thing would just
leat to confusion.


-Dave

On Thursday, 31 Jan 2002, Mark Jones wrote:
> >    Can libxml2 (http://www.xmlsoft.org) enforce/parse the schema?
> >
> 
> I notice it is in their TODO file but I can't find any references to if or
> when it will be added. Schema support is present in the parser we used
> (http://xml.apache.org).
> 
> >    If it can, then I think we should add it, and force the xml to adhere
> >    to it.
> >
> 
> The last time I coded up the Diameter XML Schema, I re-used all our XML
> files unchanged except for a one-line change to the dictionary.xml to
> reference the Schema definition (DiameterSchema.xsd) instead of the DTD. So
> the only real change when using XML Schema is that you have less validity
> constraints that have be enforced by writing additional code.
> 
> >    If not, I think we should, "Make it go away"
> 
> I think that depends how many validity constraints we have that are not
> enforced by the DTD. I certainly don't think the draft should mandate DTD or
> XML Schema. That really must be left to the implementor.
> 
> Regards,
>        Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xml mailing list
> Xml [at] frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/xml
>