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

RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

• From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>
• To: 'Nicolas LEHUEN' <nicolas.lehuen@u...>,"'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:17:27 -0700

No reason why not - in fact on input (i.e., as preparation for application
processing) it would be silly not to.  On output (i.e., I'm sending it to
someone else) I'm only interested in the final answer.  If it's not valid, I
may just dump it in the logs and deal with it later - I don't need all that
PSVI info around if my next step is to get rid of the document.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas LEHUEN [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:36 AM
> To: Fuchs, Matthew; 'Ronald Bourret'; 'xml-dev@l...'
> Subject: RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
> 
> 
> >Regarding validation vs. typing, validation is a kind of 
> type-checking
> >(constraints do specify types, just not all the types are 
> >named).  However,
> >in validation, you only ask if the document was correct, and 
> >don't get to
> >find out what the types were.
> >
> >Matthew
> 
> 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 ?
> 
> Regards,
> Nicolas
> 

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• 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