W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > August 2004

Re: "Re: XML Schema Question"

From: Mik Lernout <mik@futurestreet.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:40:16 +0200
Message-ID: <412B5350.7080600@futurestreet.org>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: xmlschema-dev@w3.org

Hihi, we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing...
I think I am going to subscribe to xml-dev and follow the discussion 
over there...

Mik

Jeni Tennison wrote:

>Hi Mik,
>
>  
>
>>For validators: actually almost every validator I have looked at
>>does all validation in one pass, including the one I am writing.
>>This is possible because the spec is written with that in mind. (For
>>example: Unique Particle Attribution Constraint
>><http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#non-ambig>)
>>    
>>
>
>Sure. I don't think that anything I wrote suggested otherwise? When I
>was talking about "layers" of validation, I was referring to people
>doing validation using different methods to address different aspects
>of the validation. For example, using XML Schema to validate the
>general structure of a document, then using Schematron to validate
>co-occurrence constraints, and then using specialised Java code to
>validate additional "business rules". There's a big discussion about
>this going on over on XML-Dev at the moment...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jeni
>
>---
>Jeni Tennison
>http://www.jenitennison.com/
>
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 14:39:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:10 UTC