[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [entity-resolution] Spec comments to process
** Reply to message from Normand_Montour@lgs.com on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:28:38 -0400 > Norm, > about point no. 2 in the technical area (schema): My thoughts would be > that > at least the DTD and the W3C Schema should be normative, but not exclusive > of any other one... My concern about this is that it can be hard to normatively guarantee that a DTD and Schema will validate all documents exactly the same way. Our spec probably has fewer problems than others in this regard, but the question remains - if the DTD and Schema return different validation results, which one is correct? This is not an easy issue. In pure marketshare terms, I think XML Schema would be the way to go. However, in terms of who is interested in XCatalogs, I think the document community takes a bigger interest than does the data community. Document people seem to prefer DTDs (with RELAX NG perhaps being the logical successor, particularly in an OASIS context). That said, if XCatalogs relied on RELAX NG, I wouldn't be able to deploy them on any project I work on. Also, as I remember, we decided that schemata of any form were not necessary for XCatalogs, just useful for some users. In that case, I would suggest doing DTD and XML Schema and RELAX NG, *none* of which are normative. Any takers? Cheers, Tony. ==== Anthony B. Coates London Market Systems Limited 33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2BR http://www.londonmarketsystems.com/ mailto:abcoates@londonmarketsystems.com Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026 [MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/] [FpML Arch WG Member (Financial Products Markup Language), http://www.fpml.org/] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This Email may contain confidential information and/or copyright material and is intended for the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this Email by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Email is not a secure method of communication and London Market Systems Limited cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which London Market Systems Limited accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of London Market Systems Limited.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]