- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:28:38 +0000
- To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
On 20 March 2012 17:18, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote: > On Tue, March 20, 2012 4:33 pm, Dave Pawson wrote: >> On 20 March 2012 14:12, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote: > ... >> I do, we have too many fundamental disagreements here Tony? > > We do, yet somehow we remain on speaking terms. Not an issue for me, I respect your views even if I disagree with them. >>> The (non-normative) XSD for XSLT 2.0 [1] models an XPath 2.0 expression >>> as: >> >> Stop sidestepping <grin/> > > I'm not sidestepping. I was trying to show both that schemas can't > express enough detail and that users' expectations of an IDE are based on > more than just schema-level checking. That has to be an assumption Tony? I guess you're making the same point as DC? My same answer, OK leave that out of the grammar, for later inclusion perhaps by Schematron / some other way. Though I'd put money (a little) on these expressions being in the 20% or less? > >> What about for that heap of ... that is the color definition? > > I don't know: you declined to detail your objections to the color > definition. Quite simply, a relax NG grammar definition would be a thousand lines or more. I expect, however, that my response would be much the same: > if it's more complex than can be expressed in a RELAX NG schema, the best > solution isn't necessarily bending it to fit in a RELAX NG schema. I want to junk it and simplify. At least until some better validation tool comes along. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 17:29:06 UTC