Re: Philosophic thought about _PARTIAL_VALIDATION

On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:10:59 +0400, you wrote:

>> "Although it is legal to define a language containing non-terminals that
>>  never resolve to terminals, such as one with purely circular definitions,
>>  it is generally impossible and/or _USELESS_ to create any valid
>>  documents for such languages."

...

>However, what if John has finished to now only x% of his part?

That's not the same thing. The statement you quote is talking about
defining a language _grammar_ that contains non-terminals that never
resolve to terminals. Your example document represents an instance of
a language, and that instance happens to be invalid because it
contains unresolved entities, but the language itself (defined by the
document's DTD) does _not_ contain any non-terminals that don't
resolve to terminals. In other words, the problem in your example is
not that the language contains inherently _unresolvable_
non-terminals, but that the particular document expressed in that
language contains _unresolved_ non-terminals.

-Steve Schafer


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list