[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: Charles Reitzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Miloslav Nic <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:18:59 -0500 (EST)
Sure, fine. Is it streamable? If not, it ain't a basic requirement. Once
a basic layer reaches recommendation status, you can do rules till the cows
come home. Until then, time's a wastin'.
It could probably be done in fewer lines of Java code. Schematron is
competing with Java, C/C++, Prolog, RDBMS stored procedures, expert systems,
etc., etc. All such rule implementation languages, including Schematron,
need access to a stable, predictable, static data definition language. The
basic layer should *not* impose DOM-like requirements on all layers over it.
From this common starting point, interesting things can proceed in the
take it easy,
At 08:51 AM 2/5/01 +0100, you wrote:
>> >Or what about "the twelfth <month> in a <year> has 31 <days>"? Is that a
>> >schema requirement? That can be expressed in some grammar languages but not
>> Not a basic requirement. I don't know of any simple grammar that would
>> express that easily. Rules+DOM are probably needed. I put this at layer 3.
>A case for Schematron (an extension taking care of February 29 would be
>easy to add):
><pattern name = "Year months">
> <rule context="year">
> <report test = "count(month/day)=31">January
> <report test = "count(month/day)=28">February