- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:53:35 -0800
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E0126413C@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
I wrote up a couple of personal blog entries on validation by projection. This seems to be a useful way of achieving forwards and backwards compatibility without relying upon schemas that have wildcards or open content models. >From the TAG's definitional perspective, I'd characterize validation by projection as an architecture where the schema(s) define a Defined Text Set and an Accept Text Set that is equal to the Defined Text Set, then the process of projection is the creation and validation of the text against a generated Accept Text Set that has the original Accept Text Set plus all possible extra undefined elements and attributes. It could also be said that a system with validation by projection has an Accept Text Set that contains the Defined Text Set plus all possible extra undefined elements and attributes, and validition is done by generating a new text by taking the original text and removing all the extra undefined elements and attributes then applying validation. I'm not sure which way I like better. Of some note, I list Henry's V2S and UBL in the implementations. http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2007/12/12/validation_by_projection_in troduction http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2007/12/12/validation_by_projection_im plementations If any of this material was to go anywhere in the finding works, I'd say in the compatibility strategies work. But I don't think we currently have the collective energy to be adding material to the versioning documents. Your thoughts? Cheers, Dave
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:53:58 UTC