Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Victory has been declared in the schema wars ...
 On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:49, Jirka Kosek wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> One thing that I have learned in the HTML5 conformance checking >> project >> is that validation when augmented with Schematron and editing with >> RELAX >> NG only call for different schemas. > > In what sense different? You have RELAX NG + Schematron and for > validation you use both schemas, but XML editor will probably use only > RELAX NG when doing code completition. What's the problem here? Exclusions are easy to tack on in Schematron. However, for a RELAX NG- only editing schema, these need to be factored into the grammar, which causes an explosion of parallel productions for a given element that differ in terms of what the ancestors are at a given point. Even if you managed to generate or write such a schema, the validation error messages it would produce would be far less obvious than the ones produced by a simpler Schematron refinement. ID/IDREF may be better than nothing for editing, but for validation, you'd want a Schematron schema (or Java code) that checks if the referenced element is of the right kind. Etc. >>> Well, according to this logic, shouldn't be then proponents of HTML5 >>> accused? ;-D >> >> Accused of what? > > Of breaking several best practices developed by markup community over > the years. Best practices that deny the realities of the Web aren't particularly good if applied to the Web. > For example: defining new markup language instead of reusing existing, Reuse only makes sense when what is being reused is suitable for the purpose for which it would be used. > refusing schemas, ... Well, we disagree here. I think it is good that the definition of the markup language isn't coupled with a requirement to use the spec writer's favorite schema technology or the fad technology of the day. > I'm wondering if all syntax changes that HTML5 makes couldn't be > just achieved by producing more strict SGML declaration for HTML. > Does anyone did such analysis? Defining HTML5 in terms of SGML would be useless, because SGML doesn't define a processing model that would be suitable for the real Web. The HTML5 spec would need to define its own parsing algorithm anyway. > If not, I think that coming with a new grammar for HTML5 is just an > insane. It is the only sane course of action given the Web realities. (From the context, I assume that by "grammar" you mean the low-level characters to parse tree syntax and not the high-level what element can occur where syntax.) > Until my validator and editor are able to understand prose text I > prefer having schemas or other similar rigor formal definitions. The WHATWG doesn't outlaw schemas for those purposes. It just makes them non-normative. That is, they are implementation details for particular applications--not part of the spec. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@i... http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ 
[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
|
|||||||||
