[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Validation API, was: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.
- From: Leigh Dodds <email@example.com>
- To: Wayne Steele <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tony.Coates@reuters.com,email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:06:50 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Steele [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 24 April 2001 20:37
> To: Tony.Coates@reuters.com; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Validation API, was: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.
> I think this discussion has happened before.
> IIRC, the consensus was that more is needed than a 'pluggable validator'
> API; each schema technology brings its own infoset contributions.
For reference, I covered the recent "Schemarama" discussions in the
Deviant column .
Francis Norton also recently announced an updated demo of using XSD and
Schematron together .
Roger Costello's ExtendingSchemas page  also covers some related
> I think people are still trying to narrow down what these 'infoset
> contributions' are, and what they look like. Then we can talk about an
> architecture for providing them.
Well the XSD contributions seem to be the base infoset  plus these
One question that might be worth considering is: of these contributions
could also be made by DTD/TREX/RELAX validation instead?
Another might be: of the proposed revisions to XSLT and XPath which infoset
contributions are required?
btw. Is there a more formal description of the PSVI in the XSD specs than
that given in ?