[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XSchema validity (was: root element)

• From: "Michael Kay" <M.H.Kay@e...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 14:06:22 +0100

>I meant the barfing semantics.  Valid was clearly a poor
choice of words.

This is going to get worse. Perhaps we should use:

well-formed: as defined in XML 1.0 (loosely, matching tags
etc)

valid: as defined in XML 1.0 (loosely, conforms to its own
DTD)

conforms to XYZ: conforms to the rules of standard XYZ (e.g.
XML-Namespace). This may of course be an
application-oriented (anti-barfing) standard

obeys ABC: conforms to the constraints specified in XSchema
ABC

These are predicates that can be applied to any XML document
including, of course, an XSchema. For an XSchema [document]
to be conformant to the XSchema standard if must be
well-formed, it must be valid under the XSchema DTD, and it
must meet additional constraints described in the text of
the XSchema standard.

An interesting question: is it an objective to allow all
[reasonable] "conformance" rules for an application to be
expressed as XSchema constraints?

Mike Kay


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: XSchema: root element
• Next by Date: Re: Attributes with Intent (and namespaces)
• Previous by thread: RE: XSchema Spec, Section 3, Draft 2 (Namespaces)
• Next by thread: Re: XSchema validity (was: root element)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread