W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

Re: XML within XML - includes, transcludes, whatever

From: Mike Marra <mike.marra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 14:35:12 -0500
Message-ID: <3A007070.1D502793@oracle.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Wouldn't this idea require two passes through the XML instance to get to
wellformed *and* valid?  If so, this seems clearly unacceptable
performance-wise.  Or am I misunderstanding the idea?


Andrew Layman wrote:

> Yes, MSXML supports the "XML-Data" schema notation [1] which introduced the
> idea of "open content models" and these have the characteristic you
> describe, namely they permit validation in the face of elements beyond those
> explicitly listed in the schema.
> The new schema notation from the W3C [2] adds substantial facilities both in
> the area of open content models and partial validation.  It allows the
> schema author to control both where undeclared elements and attributes may
> validly appear and also the extent to which they should be validated.
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/      (January 1998)
> [2]  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Schemas.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean@digitome.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:42 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: XML within XML - includes, transcludes, whatever
> At 12:59 PM 11/1/00 -0500, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> >  In other words, read in the XML as a well-formed
> >document, then apply validation to the bits you care about. The only
> >thing you'd have to be a little careful of was namespaces.
> Validating the bits you care about and ignoring the (well formed) bits
> you don't is a very powerful idea. DTDs specifically disallowed this
> sort of thing as validating parsers have to barf on occurences
> of elements with undeclared element types. Having
> said that, I remember using a version of msxml that had this
> behavior...
> Also, I seem to remember that Open Financial
> Exchange of pre-history had the same idea. I think it is a great way of
> retaining the interoperability benefits that validation provides
> but remaining robust in the face of change. Not to
> mention encouraging diversity and innovation and other
> fundamentally good things.
> Sean

Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 14:36:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC