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

Re: Workflow - on the wiki

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:28:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEncD4fJHZpxfHKonzZmZhNdcc2SCvfaN57JfvQyWyDN4yBeoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
On 20 March 2012 17:18, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
> On Tue, March 20, 2012 4:33 pm, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> On 20 March 2012 14:12, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
> ...
>> I do, we have too many fundamental disagreements here Tony?
>
> We do, yet somehow we remain on speaking terms.

Not an issue for me, I respect your views even if I disagree with them.



>>> The (non-normative) XSD for XSLT 2.0 [1] models an XPath 2.0 expression
>>> as:
>>
>> Stop sidestepping <grin/>
>
> I'm not sidestepping.  I was trying to show both that schemas can't
> express enough detail and that users' expectations of an IDE are based on
> more than just schema-level checking.

That has to be an assumption Tony?
I guess you're making the same point as DC?
  My same answer, OK leave that out of the grammar, for later inclusion
perhaps by Schematron / some other way.
   Though I'd put money (a little) on these expressions being in the
20% or less?




>
>> What about for that heap of ... that is the color definition?
>
> I don't know: you declined to detail your objections to the color
> definition.

Quite simply, a relax NG grammar definition would be a thousand lines or more.


 I expect, however, that my response would be much the same:
> if it's more complex than can be expressed in a RELAX NG schema, the best
> solution isn't necessarily bending it to fit in a RELAX NG schema.

I want to junk it and simplify.
At least until some better validation tool comes along.


regards




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:29:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:29:07 GMT