- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:05:32 -0800
- To: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <28d56ece0701311405v73c01681pf075ec279337c547@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/31/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1/31/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 1/31/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 1/31/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/31/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Some points : > > > > > > > > > > What about validation of Schema themselves ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why this would be a problem. What do you mean? > > > > > > I have a schema S that I need to validate before using it for > > > validating a group of document. > > > Should i have to validate it against the Schema of Schema ? > > > > > > The schema for schema will only do the XML part. Keep in mind that > > if there is a problem with the schema, the validate component will just > > fail because it couldn't load the schema. > > > > Hum...so we need to different kind of error. One for schema error and > One for document error I was hoping that our error context would handle this kind of differentiation. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 22:05:39 UTC