From: bbense+comp.lang.ruby.Jun.10.02@... Date: 2002-06-11T05:58:53+09:00 Subject: Re: ANN: REXML 2.3.5 && 2.2.3 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <3d03d179@news.mhogaming.com>, Sean Russell wrote: >james@rubyxml.com wrote: > >> Depends on what is meant by "standard" > >In this case, I mean what is likely to be used. The W3C does tend to act >like a standards body, but you can't really blame them. They try pretty >hard to let people know that they aren't a standards body. > > >RelaxNG is going to be of limited use if software doesn't support it. For >example, I use four dominant pieces of software for my XML work; two of the >four are incorporating XMLSchema support, and the remaining two have no >clearly stated plans for any sort of validating support. > > >My big question is: do I invest the time and effort in providing XML >validation via RelaxNG, via XMLSchema, or do I wait and see which comes out >"on top"? > - - I don't know if this is much help or not, but there is a tool that will convert most of the other major schema schemes[1] into RELAX NG. This would seem to solve some of the compatiblity problems. The tool is available at http://wwws.sun.com/software/xml/developers/relaxngconverter/ - - Booker C. Bense [1]- I need to use that phrase in my next meeting. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBPQUPfwD83u1ILnWNAQHaRAP+JLhsuMvEjrOWQJg95jCl7XWshhKXmjZj rwrP6pR6dZolbLpobS3Y5HHnn/8aNNJn2fLTxA13eCXPSNYVRUbxO/twrde4HOe3 /X9jWf9QSvYcRDdUzjd2c0BOGfxRSUUH1Am2hjCOXO82NkT5gDF+AxI02/mnMblq Tf2lZrYwywQ= =3qDq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --