[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Dan Vint <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:48:14 -0600
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?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Dan Vint [mailto:email@example.com]
....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
assurance of anything and to me implies that I have to do something more to
make sure my Scheama is good.