[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: New schema spec

• From: roddey@u...
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:51:44 -0600

>>
>> Is
>> there any way that such a system could be reasonably confirmed to be
>> non-ambigious (and by reasonable I mean very fast and small amount of code.)
>> And, given that, is there any way that it could be validated against in some
>> less than exhaustive search way?
>
>I haven't been completely through the schema spec yet, but let me ask you
>two questions: what definition of ambiguity are you using and why do you
>care? XML DTDs explicitly allow ambiguity in content models so why
>wouldn't schemas?
>

Well, its kind of a practical matter. From a support perspective (kind o'
important to a company our size) proving that the content model is ambiguous
means never have to say you're sorry, or at least have to say you're sorry less
often. We don't want people pounding us with suspected bugs that are really the
result of ambiguous content models. The existing DFA system makes it quite
straightforward to catch this, and anything that makes it hard is a bad thing,
IMHO.

And, before anyone calls me on it... no the existing XML4C2 out there now does
not do this check! It'll be in the next one :-)



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: New schema spec
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Argh...Entities
• Next by Date: Re: minOccur, maxOccur
• Previous by thread: Re: New schema spec
• Next by thread: Re: New schema spec
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread