Re: Re: validating hairy data models (was Attribute
From: "David Brownell" <david-b@p...> > The general issue is what someone pointed out: what to do > with things that aren't explicitly mentioned in a specification. > A strict interpretation of any spec says that you can't ever rely > on such things ... ergo, it's as if they're forbidden. It's always > safe to read a good spec strictly. If such a reading gives > nonsense, it's a spec problem. Natural language communication is always flawed, and formal specs in artificial languages often leave chunks out or themselves need proving or err on the side of specifying what is easy to represent in their notation/formalism. Executable specs for standards (such as IDL) are quite a lot better, but most specs are not for interfaces. So the idea of standards as Holy Writ passed down from the gods messes everyone up: a standard is the result of negotiations from some community, and the best way to make standards work is to integrate in with that community and to get to know the original intent. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format