- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:19:06 +0000
- To: public-ppl@w3.org
On 19 March 2012 20:33, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote: > IIRC (and Liam or Jirka may be able to confirm this), a lot of what people > said about 'validation' had to do with wanting to confirm which properties > are supported by which (or a particular) XSL-FO processor. Puzzling, since that information is available. > >> There are. Have you looked at it Jirka? >> For 'the hard ones' they use a content model of text. >> That's where I came unstuck. This happens in a number of areas. > > Many properties' values can be expressions that need to be resolved before > you can work out if you have an allowed value. I don't understand this statement Tony? > >> A very good start, but (my view) it's the spec that needs simplification >> rather than asking the grammar to catch up? >> >> border-start-color.attr = attribute border-start-color { text | >> expr.datatype } >> expr.datatype = xsd:normalizedString { pattern = ".*\(.*\).*" } >> >> A start, but lots more needed for validation using this grammar? > > You haven't explained where this grammar comes from, but 'expr.datatype' > would seem to be an attempt to accept expressions without evaluating them. It's from the RenderX schema, rng. > >> I haven't used folint.xsl sufficiently to comment. >> I could see some combination (schematron like), for the nasty ones? >> I'd prefer to simplify the requirement, move away from the CSS definition >> approach to these nasty ones, to provide a grammar for validation. > > But how do you do that without breaking backwards compatibility? You don't. We have no such obligation Tony. For colour, I'd suggest it is likely to be the 0.01% that would feel the effect. > > Additionally, CSS users outnumber XSL-FO users a lot. When one of the > themes from the XML Prague 2012 conference proper turned out to be the > need to make things easier/acceptable for web developers, if XSL-FO has > restrictions that aren't in CSS, I don't see that it would help people > move between the two. I don't see the mandate there? "To make things easier " How would you define that? IMHO having a complete schema to validate (even within a syntax directed editor) would make things much easier? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 07:19:34 UTC