Subject: [Ecrit] FW: [NENA-ltd] LoST

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:18:43 -0500

The NENA Long Term Definition work group has been closely following the LoST
work evidenced by early requirements Terry's concerns a week or two ago.

I again queried that group to see if they have any outstanding issues with
Terry's concerns, or any additional.  Hence I forwarded below (with
permission) Pierre's question about Relax NG.

Thanks,

-Marc-

-----Original Message-----
From: Desjardins, Pierre [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Marc Linsner; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [NENA-ltd] LoST

Marc,

I have no further issues with regards to Terry's concerns, however I did
voice a negative comment about the choice of RELAX NG as the schema language
for defining LoST messages.

I have been around XML for a very long time and this is not about the merits
of one schema language over another but rather about making life easier for
future implementers. 

Like it or not, W3C XML Schema (WXS) is the mainstream XML schema language
and it shows in the multiplicity and diversity of tools out there
(commercial or otherwise). 

The geopriv schemas were are all published using WXS which I believe favored
accelerated adoption. It seems to me that we all want the same benefit for
LoST. 

I am willing to help with putting a WXS version together -- I may even be
able to come up with a skeleton schema this weekend...

What do you think?

/Pier

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marc Linsner
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 8:30 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [NENA-ltd] LoST

All,

Sorry I couldn't make yesterday's call.

I am curious if discussion took place wrt Terry's questions/concerns about
LoST.  Is this community satisfied with responses to those concerns?  Are
there still open issues?

Thanks,

-Marc-
_______________________________________________
Nena-ltd mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/nena-ltd

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:43:50 -0500

In the IETF RAI area, there is a strong consensus towards moving  
toward Relax NG and away from XML Schema.  This is also echoed by  
many of the members of the IETF's XML Directorate, most notably Tim  
Bray -- one of the authors of XML.

To be even more specific, the experience within IETF standards with  
XML Schema has exposed two recurring issues that are solved by Relax  
NG:  1) The UPA restriction, and 2) readability of XSDs.

And to your specific points about existing IETF standards and  
existing software:

1) It is true that a lot of IETF standards use XML Schema.  That is  
due in part to the fact that XML Schema has been around longer, but  
also of the mistaken belief that BCP 70 mandated the use of XML  
Schema in IETF RFCs.  BCP 70 actually says no such thing, but this  
misperception existed for quite some time until the XML Directorate  
made the clarification.

2) At present, there does exist more software that uses XML Schema  
than Relax NG.  But at one time there was also very little software  
for XML Schema.  As Relax NG heads through the ISO standardization  
process and more IETF standards emerge that use Relax NG, more  
software supporting it will appear.

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:47:12 -0500

As a pragmatic matter, creating a non-normative version in XML Schema  
notation, whether as an IETF draft or not, could be helpful for  
implementors. After all, it's only a tool, not a religion.

On Dec 1, 2006, at 8:43 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:

> XML Schema has exposed two recurring issues that are solved by  
> Relax NG:  1) The UPA restriction, and 2) readability of XSDs.
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 20:53:56 -0500

On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> As a pragmatic matter, creating a non-normative version in XML  
> Schema notation, whether as an IETF draft or not, could be helpful  
> for implementors. After all, it's only a tool, not a religion.

Agreed.  And when it comes down to nuts and bolts, an implementation  
requires neither.

-andy