Re: RELAX NG Marketing (was RE: Do Names Matt er?)
Michael Brennan wrote: > Certainly, though, there are valid > use cases for some applications' need to augment a document's infoset. But > why do certain augmentations (e.g. attribute and element defaulting) deserve > special status, and why must they be conflated with the task of validation? > There are plenty of strategies the application could employ to do infoset > augmentation that do not require that core XML standards conflate the roles > of validation and value defaulting in such a manner that every consumer of > XML documents *must* assume that it *may* not be able to reliably interpret > the content of a document without validating it, and cannot assume that the > mere task of validation may alter the infoset. (I have nothing to add, but this paragraph is worth repeating.) When designing a markup vocabulary, it's often convenient to specify default values in the schema itself. However, the inconvenience to applications which are then forced to run a validator outweighs this when validation is expensive. Schema notations for validation should be as powerful as necessary; schema notations for augmentation should be as simple as possible. I believe as a consequence that we need more than one notation. --Joe English jenglish@f...
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