Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Michael Kay" <M.H.Kay@eng.icl.co.uk>
- To: <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 14:06:22 +0100
>I meant the barfing semantics. Valid was clearly a poor
choice of words.
This is going to get worse. Perhaps we should use:
well-formed: as defined in XML 1.0 (loosely, matching tags
valid: as defined in XML 1.0 (loosely, conforms to its own
conforms to XYZ: conforms to the rules of standard XYZ (e.g.
XML-Namespace). This may of course be an
application-oriented (anti-barfing) standard
obeys ABC: conforms to the constraints specified in XSchema
These are predicates that can be applied to any XML document
including, of course, an XSchema. For an XSchema [document]
to be conformant to the XSchema standard if must be
well-formed, it must be valid under the XSchema DTD, and it
must meet additional constraints described in the text of
the XSchema standard.
An interesting question: is it an objective to allow all
[reasonable] "conformance" rules for an application to be
expressed as XSchema constraints?
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)