Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Jan 29, 2008 8:48 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote:
> 2. Do you agree with all the above?
kind of....
schema validation sometimes gets confused with other things (that we
have present in our coding languages) like;
* try/catch errors
* assertions
* static analysis warnings/errors
* type errors ('surely this is for validation' he says)
* etc
so if one doesn't get confused with the above programmatic structures,
then I do not think there anything fundamentally wrong with version
1; being able to partially apply schema validation in a procedural
manner must have some uses... though doesn't schema-element() have
something to do with substitution groups ?
All this kind of reminds me of partial xslt processing using that java
juxy thing, which is useful in unit test situations.
I think that there is a problem with version 2 in that it is making a
lot of assumptions with not having any namespace information in the
form of fully qualified elements ... past that version 1 represents a
corner case in xpath2 that could probably be replicated with
combination of xpath1 and other stuff (xsl, xquery) ... but if its
being argued for schema validation I would just suggest using
schematron, if the itch is so great to use xpath (whatever version) to
constrain/validate one's xml.
cheers, Jim Fuller
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
