• From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:52:09 +0000

Eliot Kimber wrote:

> Standoff grammars like XSD and RELAX NG

What is a "standoff grammar"?

> XSD and RELAX NG at least avoid the problem of
> internal DTD subsets but they still fail to serve as 
> reliable definitions of document types in abstract
> because they are still only defining the grammar 
> rules for a subset of all possible conforming 
> documents in a document document type.

This sounds interesting (and very important). I am uncertain what it means. Would you mind explaining this further, in terms that people (such as myself) without a background in SGML can understand? For example, what does it mean that an XSD only defines the grammar rules for a subset of all possible conforming documents? That doesn't jive with my experience with or understanding of XSDs.

/Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SGML default attributes.
    • From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@c...>

• References:
  • Re: SGML default attributes.
    • From: "Norman Gray" <norman@a...>
  • Re: SGML default attributes.
    • From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@c...>