W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Workflow - on the wiki

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:43:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEncD4fT9kRUT5AddccLSe+s8EPGRckRxKfcvAcKPMj_SdSQNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-ppl@w3.org
On 18 March 2012 02:38, Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> Hi, Jirka
>
> With reference to the link you provided for the RenderX validators, yes,
> this is what I was looking at too. They'd already had some semblance of
> at least one of these way back when.
>
> What Dave mentioned about grammar-based validation jibes with my
> impressions from many years ago; honestly I'd have to revisit the
> problem myself before committing an opinion. :-) Having said that, it
> strikes me that if you've got folks in Prague at XSL 2012 saying that
> XSL validation is a problem, surely a number of them must have tried the
> RenderX and AH products, so what are the outstanding deficiencies with
> those?

There are. Have you looked at it Jirka?
For 'the hard ones' they use a content model of text.
That's where I came unstuck. This happens in a number of areas.
A very good start, but (my view) it's the spec that needs simplification
rather than asking the grammar to catch up?

border-start-color.attr = attribute border-start-color {  text | expr.datatype }
expr.datatype = xsd:normalizedString { pattern = ".*\(.*\).*" }

A start, but lots more needed for validation using this grammar?

I haven't used folint.xsl sufficiently to comment.
I could see some combination (schematron like), for the nasty ones?
I'd prefer to simplify the requirement, move away from the CSS definition
approach to these nasty ones, to provide a grammar for validation.

regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 08:43:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 March 2012 08:43:40 GMT