• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:39:03 -0700
• In-reply-to: <1795.203.164.53.174.1121051867.squirrel@i...>
• References: <e3a5cb2c05070610191ecca85c@m...> <4921.203.164.53.84.1120931469.squirrel@i...> <1326.203.164.53.84.1120936529.squirrel@i...> <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D104D0CD1C@R...> <1795.203.164.53.174.1121051867.squirrel@i...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

I've always thought it was a design bug in XML Schemas that you 
(apparently) can't. In particular, XML Schemas seems to put too much 
emphasis on validation, which is only one possible use, as the data 
binding case illustrates.

-- Ron

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> It is a funny question isn't it:  can you have a PSVI when you have not
> validated?
> 
> It's in the lax/strict ballpark I guess...you decide a priori that the
> document is valid. Is that the distinguishing feature that needs to be
> accommodated?  No Schema Validation Infoset (NSVI)?

• References:
  • Schema Experience Workshop minutes online
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Can Blind Freddy see a pattern here? (was Re: Schema
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • RE: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • RE: Interesting pair of comments (was Re:
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Idea - std. non-flat <g><e/></g> syntax
• Next by Date: Re: Idea - std. non-flat <g><e/></g> syntax
• Previous by thread: RE: Interesting pair of comments (was Re:
• Next by thread: Re: Interesting pair of comments (was Re: Schema Experience Workshop minutes online)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread