Talk:RELAX NG

I'm a Relax NG user but hardly a computer scientist. It would be good if someone who was looked over in particular the comparison between Relax NG and W3C Schemas for accuracy and salient features. (I felt that a comparison section was justified because W3C Schemas are better known and are sometimes assumed to be the de facto standard XML schema language.)

On the to do list: add internal links; create a stub for "nondeterministic content model"? And speaking of stubs, is it okay to remove the stub template from this article? (I'm a relative newbie here and couldn't figure out from the Wikipedia documentation whether there's an official procedure for stub-to-article transformation.) --Dsewell 02:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's OK to remove the stub. I did so, and made some other minor edits. An article stops being a stub when it is sufficiently descriptive of its topic, in the eyes of the editors (you and me and whoever else cares enough to click on 'edit this page'). I'd say you did a pretty good job of fleshing it out.

The comparison section is a good start. I'd add that RELAX NG has a slightly narrower objective than WXS; it's not oriented toward providing a PSVI, and you should be careful to avoid implying that the differences between the two languages are necessarily shortcomings or even 'missing features' that connote inferiority. — mjb 03:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some substantial updates to the comparison section. At this point, it might be useful to actually extract this section and make it a page of its own. The topic certainly merrits a separate Wiki page. Korval 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory and illogical section[edit]

I'm not an expert on this subject, so don't know how to fix it, but the following section of the article makes no sense:

 Here is the compact form of the Russian-doll schema:

 start =
   element book {
     element page { text }+
   }

 The flattened schema is even shorter in compact form:

 start = element book { page+ }
 page = element page { text }

There are two problems with this. First, both examples are described as "compact form". Second, the second example is described as "shorter" but really, it just contains less whitespace. It contains 13 symbols (including the '+' after page as a separate symbol) rather than the 12 of the first example (also including the + as a separate symbol). This is perhaps more apparent if they are written without newlines and indentation:

 start = element book { element page { text }+ }
 start = element book { page+ } page = element page { text }

The second example is substantially longer, not shorter as is claimed in the text. JulesH 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand: both the XML and compact sections have two schemas -- the Russian Doll one and the flattened one. The text claims that the compact ones are shorter than their XML counterparts.

Fixed. Korval 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the Relax NG Schema[edit]

Perhaps the article could show the completed, composed document that includes references to the schema? What would the complete document look like?

I suspect it would look like either:

 <?xml version="1.0"?>
 <!DOCTYPE book SYSTEM "book.rng">
 <book>
   <page>This is page one.</page>
   <page>This is page two.</page>
 </book>

Or possibly:

 <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <book xmlns="http://www.w3schools.com"
       xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
       xsi:schemaLocation="book.rng">
   <page>This is page one.</page>
   <page>This is page two.</page>
 </book>

If the second is correct, can someone check the URLs? Does "...XMLSchema-instance" apply to RELAX NG, or does it require an other url? --MyOwnLittlWorld (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]