- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:20:34 -0400
- To: "Colin Mackenzie" <colin@elecmc.com>
- Cc: "Rainer Becker" <r.becker@Nitro-Software.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
I think this discussion is leading us down a slippery slope. The schema recommendation is clear that no language, other than a Turing-complete programming language, can provide all the validation one might reasonably want for one application or another. From section "1.1 Purpose" [1]: "Any application that consumes well-formed XML can use the XML Schema: Structures formalism to express syntactic, structural and value constraints applicable to its document instances. The XML Schema: Structures formalism allows a useful level of constraint checking to be described and implemented for a wide spectrum of XML applications. However, the language defined by this specification does not attempt to provide all the facilities that might be needed by any application. Some applications may require constraint capabilities not expressible in this language, and so may need to perform their own additional validations." The proposed requirement in this case seems to be to have enough computational capability to derive some sort of check digit in a credit card number or similar code. Well, there will always be things we cannot validate. For example, we can make sure that a credit card looks like a credit card number, to some degree, but we cannot hope to prove that the card isn't stolen. That's presumably what it really means for a credit card number to be valid. Consider the requirements of a mathematician. Would it not be reasonable for him or her to request the ability to derive a sub type of integer to be known as "PrimeNumber"? Are we supposed to validate that -- make sure the number is prime? My point is that systems like schema can embody a reasonable level of checking, but cannot in general meet the validation needs of particular applications. Schemas can give you a pre-filter, and some very useful constraints that aid in mapping to data structures and databases, and that greatly simplify the validation remaining to be done by applications. Even our mathematician will be glad that we check for positive integer, which significantly facilitates the work that he or she then has to do to prove primeness. Bottom line: I think that regex's represent a very reasonable 80/20 point in the design space. They provide a quite powerful and generally useful level of checking, without requiring that we invent a portable programming language in which to capture additional logic. Thank you very much. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#intro-purpose ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 13:21:55 UTC