Re: [wsbpel] Using RelaxNG

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Jonathan,

Alot of those vendor supporting boats are stuck on rocks the
W3C schema was supposed to float them safely over ; -)

So- wait a year while schema is re-tooled - and hope its
more bouyant - or bring in some additional floatation support
immediately to get off the rocks?

DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anderson Jonathan" <anderson_jonathan@bah.com>
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>; "Maciej Szefler" <mbs@fivesight.com>
Cc: "Ron Ten-Hove" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Using RelaxNG


> Here's your view from the ground (the SOAP based SOA ground, at least):
>
> Thanks, but no thanks.  XSD already keeps me busy enough.  :)
>
> Seriously, I have a hard enough time keeping track of which W3C XML Schema
> toolkits support which W3C Schema features, much less which SOAP
> toolkits/platforms leverage which schema toolkits/data binding engines
under
> the covers.
>
> God bless the RelaxNG guys for fighting the good fight (W3C Schema is just
a
> monster), but I fear the the vendor support boat may have already sailed -
> we shall see, right?
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan Anderson
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 3:39 PM
> To: Maciej Szefler
> Cc: Anderson Jonathan; Ron Ten-Hove; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Using RelaxNG
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the
> OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.
> php.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>