- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:44:24 -0400
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "public-xml-core-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Rich Salz scripsit: > > The validity constraints that you say are > > on the document itself are ones that *could* be specified by some > > other mechanism than DTDs, such as XML Schemas. > > Yes. I think Richard Tobin conceded too much here: see below. > > It seems you want a term meaning "valid according > > to whichever kind of schema I am using", and I think it would be very > > confusing to adopt the plain term "valid" for that, when it has been > > used for so long in both SGML and XML to mean "DTD valid". > > No. I want a term for "the instance document meets every single > validity constraint from the XML spec, except that no DTD is present." That's simply self-contradictory. Another schema language may have a *different* constraint that is generally analogous to the XML validity constraint Element Valid (to pick the first one from your list), but it isn't the *same* constraint, and there's no a priori method of figuring out which one it is. For example, what is analogous to Element Valid using a Schematron schema? And so on for the rest of the list. It's perfectly well-defined to talk about XML validity (that is, self-consistency), or W3C XML Schema validity, or Schematron validity, or RELAX NG validity (all three with respect to external schema documents), or even Hook validity (which is a different kind of self-consistency). But adopting the list of XML validity constraints and saying that they make sense WRT a different schema language, no. > Then the XML spec needs to be revised to make DTD's namespace > aware, don'tcha think? Or do you really think that the only way > realistic way to have valid XML documents -- or hack, let me show > my true colors and say "XML messages -- is to not use namespaces? Use XXX validity for your favorite XXX. If existing schema languages don't serve your needs, make a new one. But don't expect it to be incorporated into the definition of XML. -- So that's the tune they play on John Cowan their fascist banjos, is it? jcowan@reutershealth.com --Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Sunday, 24 April 2005 16:45:04 UTC