Re: Schema & BP Spec: Items for today's BP/CC meeting

[Betty Harvey <ebxml@eccnet.eccnet.com>]

The problem with delivering only a W3C schema is that it isn't
approved yet.  Tools available for working with schemas
are limited.  If ebXML is a standards body, it can't deliver
only a schema when schema is standard.  Also, there are 2 other
schema specifications being worked on by 2 other standards
organizations, TREX by OASIS and RELAX through ISO.  

I think it would be wiser to deliver a DTD as the official
deliverable and a schema as an 'added value'.

Betty

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Betty Harvey                         | Phone: 410-787-9200 FAX: 9830 
Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |        
harvey@eccnet.com                    | Washington,DC SGML/XML Users Grp
URL:  http://www.eccnet.com          | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug/
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/  

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Hayes, Brian wrote:

> Karsten wrote: 
> > An issue just raised by Neal: Should we include a W3C schema 
> > version of the
> > SpecSchema along with (or instead of) the DTD? What is the 
> > recommendation from
> > BP/CC - DTD or Schema, or both?
> 
> Time permiting, I strongly recommend we deliver a schema version.  DTDs are
> not precise enough for defining interfaces (structure and strings) and the
> BP Spec Schema is essentially and interface.
> 
> Brian
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>