Re: [NGO] NETCONF Data Modeling BoF (NDM) proposal

Hi Balasz,

the main reason is the stunning nxml mode for emacs that does
autocompletion, on-the-fly validation etc.

I tend to agree though that the best way of presenting schemas in RFCs
would be the compact format as it would be accessible to a broader
community almost without any a priori explanation.

A useful extension of the method I described in
draft-lhotka-relaxng-to-rfc-00 could thus be to transform the annotated
input schema (in XML syntax, exactly as described in the draft) into
xml2rfc XML but present the RELAX NG blobs in the compact syntax.

Cheers, Lada

Balazs Lengyel píše v Čt 20. 09. 2007 v 18:03 +0200:
> Hello Ladislav,
> Why did you choose to use the XML format of RelaxNG? I was always told that the compact format 
> is much nicer.
> Balazs
> 
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Andy Bierman píše v St 12. 09. 2007 v 12:17 -0700:
> >> I don't think that many people know RelaxNG.
> >> When <appinfo> and <documentation> type of clauses are included,
> >> it isn't so clean anymore.  It may be just as hard to learn for
> > 
> > RELAX NG allows application-specific info and documentation (in foreign
> > namespaces) to be directly included in the schema, without any (clumsy)
> > encapsulating elements. Here is an example:
> > http://www.flowmon.org/flowmon-probe/devel/config/flowmon-rng/
> > (this HTML was compiled directly from a valid RELAX NG schema via XSLT)
> >    
> >> people as XSD.  It doesn't really deal with any NETCONF-specific
> >> issues (like max-access and conceptual tables) any more than XSD.
> > 
> > Maybe not, but at least it is relatively simple, extensible and based on
> > a sound mathematical basis (labelled tree automata). See also
> > http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo