Tod Olson wrote:
> What I've not seen is an account of
> why those projects have chosen to migrate to RelaxNG over XSD.
FYI, from Sebastian Rahtz of TEI:
> I don't think we have any single documents, just a long thread
> one deliberation is at http://www.tei-c.org/Council/tcw02.html, but does not explain the choice.
> The report at http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/META/mew01.html records the decision based on
> # Uses XML syntax, enabling easy validation and analysis
> # Is very readable, and fairly easy to relate to DTD
> # Is well-implemented by different processors, and so immediately useable
> # Uses W3C schema datatyping
> # Seems likely to be included in the forthcoming ISO DSDL
> # Can be converted to W3C schema if needed
> from which I suppose the factors that make it preferable to XSD
> were a) readability, b) implementations, and c) ISO imprimatur
> The readability is hard to be rational about; but the existence of Relax Compact
> certainly makes a big difference. The implementation thing is probably more
> evenly balanced now. The ISO imprimatur is a double-edged sword.
> I can't imagine ever having chosen XSD. It just feels wrong.
> Sebastian Rahtz Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431