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

RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

• From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• To: 'Ronald Bourret' <rpbourret@r...>,"'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:07:53 +0200

Well, I'm considering to implement a validator right now. The algorithms I
have in mind for a validator or a type-associating processor are very close.
The crude vision is that when you are processing a document to associate
type to elements, if you can't find any valid type for the current element
in its context, then the document is invalid. Validation and type
association are done in the same time.

Oh, I now understand the reason why some people want unique element names :
you can associate elements to types without validating, just by looking up
in a type table. Then what we would get should not be called a PSVI (Post
Schema Validation Infoset) but a thing like TI (Typed Infoset).

But anyway, I wonder what those people are going to do with this information
thereafter, because you're trusting that your document follows a particular
schema, and don't have any proof of it. This *is not* robust. Plus, I'd be
very interested in seeing applications that process PSVIs or TIs in a
context-insensitive way. What kind of applications could it be ? Do you have
examples in mind ?

Regards,
Nicolas

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...]
>Envoye : jeudi 30 aout 2001 10:33
>A : 'xml-dev@l...'
>Objet : Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
>
>
>Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>> Yes, but as validation and typing are tightly bound in terms 
>of algorithm,
>> why not perform them both in the same path, for the sheer 
>sake of efficiency
>> ? When validating, you collect a lot of useful data (you 
>know what XSDL
>> types you are matching against elements), so why no keep 
>this information in
>> a PSVI to give it to the next layer ?
>
>>From my reading of the schema spec, this is what a validator does. My
>point is that it would be nice if the PSVI was clearly factored so I
>could write a processor to just add type information without performing
>validation. This would be much cheaper and would be useful in
>applications where I trusted the source of my documents.
>
>-- 
>Ronald Bourret
>XML, Databases, and Schemas
>http://www.rpbourret.com
>Speaker, Geek Cruises' XML Excursion '02
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Next by Date: Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Previous by thread: Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Next by thread: Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread