- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:59:19 -0400
- To: Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>
- Cc: public-ppl@w3.org
On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 14:12 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: [...] > So, if you can't use the formatter itself to do that check, the > formatter/implementor must provide some sort of profile file describing > what the formatter can do and a separate validator product needs to > interpret that profile and apply it against the given FO. Big task. Some parts are hard (and may not in fact be machine-processable in any useful way) and other parts are likely to be straight forward. For XQuery (a much more complex language) processors are required to supply a natural-language conformance statement, but in XQuery 3 we're introducing the ability for an XQuery file to say which optional features it needs, or to disallow optional features, so that you can test it for portability -- if you disallowed feature F and then you make use of it, the implementation must report an error. Of course, that's only as good as the implementations, so we'll see. [...] We had planned to extend the expression language, and that would likely make it harder (or impossible) for regular-expression-based validation like XSD or RNG... for XQuery there's an XML-based syntax for the expression language, and people can convert to that and validate, but I don't think it helps for syntax-directed editing. > > Note that now 'we' are the spec writers? > > Uhm, I thought it's the W3C WG that make up the actual spec writers, not > the PPL community group. I can't currently commit enough time to join > the XPPL WG. Not enough other people had time to join the XPPL WG, not even an hour a week. So the work has stopped, and as chair of it, I'm looking for other ways forward. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 18:02:44 UTC