[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "K.Kawaguchi" <email@example.com>
- To: James Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:24:06 -0800
> If you're using RELAX for validation, it doesn't have any ambiguity
> issues. In this regard it is the same as TREX. The ambiguity issues
> only arise if you try to use it to "interpret" the document (that is
> augment the information in the document by assigning each element or
> attribute a label corresponding to some rule in the schema). If you
> just stick to validation, there's no issue.
You're right. And I read your tutorial that states
> The role of TREX is ... not to assist in interpretation of the
> documents belonging to the class
(1) I think "assistance of the interpretation" is important requirement
of schema language (or at least I think there are solid needs).
But it seems to me that you don't share this view, do you. Why?
(2) If we set aside ambiguity issue, it is easy to add "assistance"
capability to TREX, by (for example) introducing "type" attribute to
each <element> and <attribute> element in the pattern.
Do you have any reason to discourage this?