- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:54:20 +0100
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 03/04/07, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > On 4/1/07, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Downstream processing of xml content requires validation and hence > > versioning to assure the processor that the content being worked > > is as expected. > > Processing content requires only that the recipient be able to > understand it. Validation plays no role in that. I disagree with that statement. An application can be said to 'understand' an instance if the instance contains only elements from the schema for which it was designed. Hence validation may play an important role in downstream processing. At best it's just > one way that a document recipient can identify content that might not > be understood. But even without validation the content would > certainly be found to be "invalid" eventually, as processing is > attempted. A bit hit and miss Mark? > > IME, if you define a decent extensibility model such that future > documents can be processed by old software, not only do you not need > validation, but it actually gets in the way of building evolvable > systems. Where's the border between evolution and crystal ball gazing? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 06:54:32 UTC