Hello all,
Are you sure Nina? Afaik a WSDL can be defined with a single method that takes a document and define that the document needs to have a NMWG schema?
Alike: http://www.w3.org/2001/04/wsws-proceedings/uche/wsdl.html
Though it does require a xsd or other supported schema type (eg not relaxng). Now relaxng can be transformed but the transformation isn't formal/unambiguous/two-way, or differently put if you transform from relaxng to xsd and back you are not guaranteed to end up with the same relaxng document. This is because some relaxng concepts can't be mapped completely into xsd. Now afaik we don't make use of such concepts now but it could create problems in the future.
As I frequently hear that there is no objection to particular preference for xsd/relaxng from a theoretical standpoint (I know WG prefers relaxng) Why not switch to xsd for practial reasons?
Hmm, it's not a bad idea to switch from relaxng to xsd in nmc documents (although I like more the former). Most documentations of xml schemas I've seen were done with xsd.
I'm not an expert in relaxng... so, is it more powerful than xsd? Sorry about that "stupid" question... maybe it's like discussing if you should install Debian or Ubuntu... :-D
For me relaxng is more readable than xsd.
I don't feel strongly about this for either case. We can add the XSD representation to the Apendix and show both if there is interest, or we can go with just one. I would prefer to stick with RELAX since this represents the physical work we did (not a mechanical translation). -jason