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

Re: ANN: owl.dtd

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 01:26:06 -0400
• References: <3ECFD6EE.D9C06AD@m...> <02f401c3223a$6bfdab60$b6f5d3ce@L565><026e01c32342$6fd8d1c0$4bc8a8c0@A...>

[Rick Jelliffe]
A standard which does not define itself using/providing/profiling a standard
executable syntax
(e.g. schema) for its non-specific properties (i.e. its grammar not its
semantics) should be rejected
on the QA basis of being error-prone. An unmeasurable standard is no
standard at all, it is a sketch
for a standard or a parody of a standard.

[Tom P]
Whoa, hold up there, Rick.  How about xslt (and therefore Schematron!)?
There is no useful schema because any elements and attributes can be put in
the document.  As Mike Kay and others point out from time to time, xslt
validation is done by the xslt processor as it tries to compile the
stylesheet.

You don;t want to say that governments should avoid xslt because it can't be
validated against a schema, do you? (Or is there an RNG schema possible for
xslt?)

There can still be validators - they just do not validate using ordinary
schemas.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread