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

Re: AW: Need a language whiz: An XML Schema "specifies"how dat

• From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>
• To: Frank Steimke <f-steimke@berger-und-steimke.de>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 03:11:31 -0500

On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 07:59 +0100, Frank Steimke wrote:
> 
[...]
> We are pretty much interested about comments from the experts,
> whether the distinction between these two phrases (and phases) makes
> sense and seems to be useful. 

Since you've described it clearly it makes sense, at least in your
context.

Since you're getting value from it, it's useful, at least in your
context.

The use of Schematron warnings for things that don't cause a document
to be rejected but might trigger additional Q/A checks or processing is
probably not unusual, although i haven't heard your name for it before.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG

Web slave for http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

• References:
  • Re: Need a language whiz: An XML Schema "specifies" howdata is to be structured? "describes"? "constrains"?
    • From: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>
  • Re: Need a language whiz: An XML Schema "specifies" how data is to be structured? "describes"? "constrains"?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • AW: Need a language whiz: An XML Schema "specifies" how data is to be structured? "describes"? "constrains"?
    • From: "Frank Steimke" <f-steimke@berger-und-steimke.de>