Sadly, the vast majority are simple XML tags - not even a DTD. The next bucket uses DTDs. To Juniper's credit, they are one of the *very* few that actually use an XSD.
regards,
John
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner@intelliden.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:05 PM
To: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Deja vu Again
Hi -
> Message-ID:
> <C94C3F56FA66EC4DA473B081A147D85D602AB8@cosium01.intelliden.net>
> From: John Strassner <John.Strassner@intelliden.com>
> To: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>, xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Deja vu Again
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:43:35 -0600
...
> Yes, I think that in order to realize the goals that have been stated,
> = a DTD is not sufficient. There is a world of difference between an
> XSD and a = DTD.
...
For the XML currently in use by the various vendors, does anyone know roughly what percentage has been specified using XSDs rather than DTDs? (Just curious - I'm not advocating
anything.)
------------------------------------------------------
Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141
randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street
Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA
------------------------------------------------------
My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
------------------------------------------------------
--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>