Re: [Ecrit] Re: [Rai-discuss] Schema --> RelaxNG

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

I doubt its easy to get IETF consensus on ANYTHING, let alone on the 
outcome of a format war.

I'm not sure I agree with a universal move to Relax-NG. One of my 
concerns is a pragmatic one. A fair bit of energy has been invested by 
many people into using schema for protocol design. How many participants 
in the RAI groups or IETF at large know how to design Relax-NG?

-Jonathan R.

Carsten Bormann wrote:

>> I would suggest that the RAI area declare that new efforts should,  by 
>> default, use RelaxNG rather than Schema unless there is a strong  
>> reason to do otherwise, such as extending existing Schema-specified  
>> work.
> 
> 
> Yes, please.
> Moving to Relax-NG (typically in compact form) for specification work  
> is and has been a trend that is almost universal in the XML  community, 
> for many good reasons.
> 
> (Oh, and this needn't be limited to RAI; it may be easier to get IETF  
> consensus on this than some may think.)
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[e-mail]                              FAX:   [phone]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: [phone]
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit