Re: Validate **against** a schema OR validate **with** a
rjelliffe@a... wrote: >> Defaulting values came from SGML days and DTDs.. So it's been around for >> a >> while. Many folks have wanted the validation and augmentation steps >> separate though no real progress on that. > > Adding default information and other properties is a very respectable > thing for a schema language to do, IMHO. > > The difficulty is when 1) there is no processing model that guarantees it > will happen (with SGML and perhaps XML entities the augmentation is > required), and 2) when the augmentation does not have a natural or formal > XML form and so requires a change in technology. 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)? > > The dis-integrated committee processes at W3C makes it difficult to get > any resolution of these, it seems to me. If W3C won't address it... > > What is happening, I think, is that because of the complexity of XSD, the > unreliability of PSVI augmentation, and the lack of PSVI-in-XML, > developers end up using XSLT to do defaulting, either by preprocessing or > (probably more often) by copying the defaulting code in each transform > they write. As far as defaulting goes, XSD has been a major step backwards > for markup processing, but I suppose it is an issue essentially irrelevant > if you assume you have a DBMS in the picture. But clearly not so amongst the readers here. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[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