Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Toby Speight <email@example.com>
- To: "XML developers' list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 02 Jul 1998 11:10:36 +0100
Simon> Simon St.Laurent <URL:mailto:SimonStL@classic.msn.com>
=> In article <UPMAIL17.email@example.com>, Simon
Simon> The concern I have is that processing XSchemas now requires a
Simon> lot of extra checking on the 'correctness' of the XSchema.
Simon> Using the elements, convoluted though it was, allowed the use
Simon> of a simple validation (okay, it's ironic) to make sure that
Simon> the XSchema wasn't attempting to provide an odd combination of
Simon> Does this extra overhead for checking XSchemas bother anyone?
Simon> The goals said that XSchema would have a DTD, not that an XSchema
Simon> that can validate against the DTD would be functionally correct.
Simon> (Or some such weirdness.) So far we've been using the DTD to
Simon> constrain the XSchema's possible content. This would be a change
Simon> of philosophy in that regard.
I like using the DTD as much as possible to constrain the XSchema.
There is a small benefit, as you mention, for validation of complete
XSchemas if most of the work can be done by the parser, but I think
the real benefit comes when editing: a decent XML editor[*] can
improve my productivity by reducing the number of mistakes I can
make. It's much easier and faster to spot errors as one is editing,
rather than have to invoke an external validator to find them. (In a
similar way, I prefer editors to understand the syntax of programming
languages, as I don't like having to wait for compilation too often.)
[*] I only use psgml on Emacs; I assume this applies to editors in
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)