RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

We're circling a known problem:  a DTD can 
be used to ensure a schema is valid, but 
the meaning of validity (what 'is' is) is 
fairly restricted.  That is why definitions 
based on infosets/groves were needed by 
SGML and why organizations such as 
TechnoTeacher developed grove-processing 
engines.  One does have to get beyond the 
DTD.  Essentially, the DTD is doing 
something convenient at this time:  serving as 
a processable kind of BNF for the productions 
in the document as well as enabling extra 
infomation such as #FIXED values.  It is 
too weak a description to say much if anything 
about the semantics of the processor of the 
document; that is by design.   If I understand 
what you are saying, neither a DTD nor a schema 
would be adequate to define an XSLT processor 
even if one described the XSLT productions. 

Is that the case?

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Vint [mailto:dvint@slip.net]

....it would be nice is the Schema 
DTD was normative to say that any document I create to that DTD is a valid
Schema because it conforms and validates against it. Now it is sort of a
weak
assurance of anything and to me implies that I have to do something more to 
make sure my Scheama is good.