- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:28:52 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr, www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > I suspect it's still more expressive than DTDs, though I'm not certain. > Surely the XPath string and numeric operations are more expressive > than DTDs. Seems like an interesting research topic. > I would define "more expressive" in this context as meaning it was possible to write (in some language, not necessarily Schemtron) a DTD-to-schematron compiler. i.e. for every DTD there was a Schematron schema that validated the same set of documents. Is that possible? No, it's not. It runs ashore the same rock that all other attempts to replace DTD so: no entity definitions. Schematron also won't do notations or attribute types. So in terms of expressivity, Schematron is neither clearly more nor clearly less. You can say some things in Schematron you can;t say in DTDs, but the reverse is also true. Perhaps if you could define a more quantitative measure of expressivity, the statement that Schematron is more expressive than DTDs might still be true. You could say "Schematron can say 23 things and DTD can only say 17 things." but I'm not sure how you'd count that. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2006 11:29:03 UTC