Re: Schemas and validation

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Joe D Williams wrote:
> 
>>> no schema language can capture all the conformance requirements of 
>>> XHTML5.
>>
>> maybe so, because some requirements are runtime.
> 
> Henri's not talking about runtime requirements. The static 
> machine-checkable syntax conformance requirements of HTML5 cannot be 
> fully and correctly expressed in any of the existing popular schema 
> languages.
> 
>> If we can't produce a valid (highly informative) XML Schema that can 
>> accurately represent the authortime syntax and sctructure 
>> requirements, then there will be no firm standards-track crosscheck 
>> between authortime content structures, the intent of the standard, and 
>> the runtime of the operating browser.
> 
> The crosscheck would be to use the validator. If you want a schema that 
> approximates most of the requirements, validator.nu includes a RelaxNG 
> schema that anyone could use for their own purposes. But it should not 
> be assumed that any content satisfying this schema is correct.
> 
> My understanding is that DTDs and XML Schema are both significantly 
> weaker than Relax NG and can represent even fewer of the requirements 
> accurately.

Second, I suggest that people who wish to discuss this topic (yet 
again!) do so in the context of bug 8611:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8611

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:37:08 UTC