Re: Validate **against** a schema OR validate **with** a
DavePawson wrote: > > Is that the heart of the matter Rick? > Thinking of todays list of 'applications' to take a simple SGML > validation and partition it into many parts for different reasons, > isn't augmentation just another option along the way (that some > people want)? There is no way for an XSD schema or an instance to communicate to processing software that the full infoset of the document will only be obtained if default values specified in the schema are added. With DTDs, the problem does not arise: you have to add the defaults (if standalone!=yes etc). With RELAX NG, the problem does not arise: there is no notion of defaulting. For XSD, you have to look at the particular schema (does it provide defaults?) and know something about the instance (does it assume defaults?) and both (do the defaults that the instance assumes match the defaults in the schema I will use?) and then work out how to configure your system to make sure that defaulting is done (if there is in fact a built-in way.) > > If W3C won't address it... > XML and XSD and all the spaghetti in between are their standards: no-one else will take it on. And there is no groundswell for XML 2.0 which could consolidate and fix these: mostly when I see calls for XML 2.0 it relates to some syntactical piddliality. > > But clearly not so amongst the readers here. But we are clearly the solution to any and every problem, and never the cause... Cheers Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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