- From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:29:35 -0800
- To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Michel, Adrian'" <adrian.michel@commerceone.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Fuchs, Matthew [SMTP:matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 3:01 PM > To: 'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'; Michel, Adrian > Cc: 'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org' > Subject: RE: Schema for schemas and XML schema DTD > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] > > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:29 AM > > To: Michel, Adrian > > Cc: 'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'; Fuchs, Matthew > > Subject: Re: Schema for schemas and XML schema DTD > > > > As you well know, XML 1.0 specifies two levels of conformance - > well-formed > and validating. The Schema for schemas currently requires a _validating_ > processor. > I won't comment on the general issue of whether or not the schema for schemas should reference a DTD which changes the infoset, but... doing so does not require schema processors to be built using a validating processor...it simply requires a non-validating processor which reads the external subset...quite a different thing. pvb
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2000 18:46:09 UTC