RE: [wsbpel] Using RelaxNG

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Maciej,

So, I suspect the reaction from most BPEL implementers and users to the
idea of using RelaxNG for BPEL language description would be something
like: "Thank you, but no thanks. XSD already keeps me busy enough ...".

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:32 PM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Anderson Jonathan; Ron Ten-Hove; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Using RelaxNG
> 
> 
> Ugo,
> 
> On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 12:48, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > Maciej,
> > 
> > Wouldn't that imply that a BPEL implementation would have 
> to support 
> > both an XSD validator AND a RelaxNG validator?
> > 
> > Ugo
> Absolutely. XSD validation would still be needed for what in 
> BPEL passes as type checking (both at run-time and in 
> static-analysis). RelaxNG would be needed at "compile time" 
> to check the syntax of the language. This is in line with the 
> common decomposition of a language specification into lexical 
> grammar (roughly ~ XML), syntactic grammar (~ 
> RelaxNG/XSD+post-parse checking), type system (~ XSD+rules), 
> and execution semantics(~ shared sub-conscious understanding). 
> 
> Perhaps others disagree, but I do not think it is remotely 
> practical or desirable to change the typing scheme 
> considering the close association between WSDL and XSD (not 
> to mention the reality on the ground). 
> 
> -maciej
> 
>