Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 15:39 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On 4/9/13 3:21 PM, John Cowan wrote: > > When you publish a set of documents, publishing the schema to which you > > claim they conform is very useful for everyone. For one thing, it's > > concrete, testable documentation about what to expect from you. This is > > the opposite of the "normal" use of schemas as input validation: here > > they are serving as *output* validation as well as documentation. > > That qualifies as a neat reversal of polarity. It's been fairly common in some circles for decades (starting with SGML). I gave a paper in this area at SGML 96. One reason is that markup is often used for transcriptions of already-extant documents, whether cuneiform on fragments of pottery or printed books from the 1700s or 1800s, or brands on people's rumps :-) If the DTD or Schema conflicts with what's in the primary text, the primary text is what's right, not the schema. This is referred to in the literature as descriptive markup. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
