[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
So the RNG has not even a hint of interpretive semantics and doesn't use a DOCTYPE. I suppose a document could theoretically stuff a PI in there to point to the RNG if that were handy. A "validator" as you used the work below is some process or person that needs to perform validation using RNG, yes? Good. That's a good layer. Now I understand what you meant by "DTD on steroids"; RNG does what most of us do with DTDs most of the time. Now why would RNG want to decorate with types? How would that be different from what Schema does? len -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > For schemas, nyet. But for the Schema Definition > language itself, da. I don't know what RELAX NG > is using for this. Anyone? Well, remember that RNG provides only validation, not interpretation:[*] it has nothing like default attributes or entity declarations. Therefore, the RNG attitude is that it is the validator, not the document author, who decides which schema to validate a document against and when. (Although in practice the schema may often originate with the document author, or an earlier avatar thereof.) As a result, there is no provision in either an RNG schema or a document to refer to the other. > Levels. Agreements are usually layered if negotiated. > Blind exchanges should not be the way the web works. Exactly. [*]In principle, RNG-based tools could do type decoration as well, though there are problems with overlapping types that are not yet solved.
|
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
|