- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:32:00 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Feb 25, 2006, at 01:16, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > For the kind of detailed conformance checking HTML5 requires, you'll > > be wanting to use your own explicit hard-coded implementation, not one > > or more schemas. IMHO. > > Is there any particular reason why you think one wouldn't want to use > schemas? Probably just my personal aversion to schemas. > The downside I see is that error messages will be less precise than what > carefully crafted custom code would allow. However, I believe a > schema-based implementation to be easier to write, more maintainable, > more portable and better customizable (portable and customizable e.g. > for inclusion in a CMS that wants more restrictions on input). Certainly implementations are free to use schemas if they desire, so long as the end result is compliant. > My current plan is > 1) to use RELAX NG for everything it is convenient for (element nesting, > attribute occurrence, attribute datatypes through datatype libraries) > 2) to use the XSD datatype library within RELAX NG for everything it is good > for > 3) to define (in English) and implement (in Java) a datatype library for stuff > that the XSD library is not good for > 4) to use Schematron for stuff that Schematron can cover but the above can't > conveniently cover > 5) to use custom Java code if there is still something that is not covered. I look forward to hearing you describe your experiences with this. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 11:32:00 UTC