norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2006/11/20/relaxngtchttp://norman.walsh.name/2006/11/20/relaxngtc/comments.atom2012-02-13T08:29:08.691907ZComment 1 on /2006/11/20/relaxngtchttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012006-11-27T16:34:30Z2006-11-27T16:34:30ZScott Hudsonda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

One suggestion I would have is to enable a way of declaring character entities in RelaxNG. Having to use a DOCTYPE Decl in the XML is a bit kludgy...

Comment 2 on /2006/11/20/relaxngtchttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022007-05-09T12:54:12Z2007-05-09T12:54:12ZJochen Hayekda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I found a statement of yours dated something in 2005 saying "RELAX NG is the future for DocBook."

I was searching for a way or a place (newsgroup??) to ask you, what is your opinion on this in 2007, and I found this blog entry quite well-suited.

Although this topic sounds like real future work on RELAX NG, I'm not really convinced, that anybody will seriously do any development work on RELAX NG, ie. grammar, capabilities, core utilities, etc.

I know, you are still and apparently continuously working on RELAX NG versions of docbook, but still: now in April, 2007, after quite a while of silence from James Clark, do you consider RELAX NG as a serious way to go in XML work? For someone not yet decided where to invest his time: would you recommend me diving into XML Schema or into RELAX NG?

I am certainly already very satisfied with a link to a statement of yours on this topic anywhere else.

Kind regards, J.