OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

So the RNG has not even a hint of interpretive semantics 
and doesn't use a DOCTYPE.  I suppose a document could 
theoretically stuff a PI in there to point to the 
RNG if that were handy.  A "validator" as you used 
the work below is some process or person that needs 
to perform validation using RNG, yes?   Good.  That's
a good layer.  Now I understand what you meant by 
"DTD on steroids"; RNG does what most of us do with 
DTDs most of the time.

Now why would RNG want to decorate with 
types?   How would that be different from what Schema 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> For schemas, nyet.  But for the Schema Definition 
> language itself, da.  I don't know what RELAX NG 
> is using for this. Anyone?

Well, remember that RNG provides only validation, not
interpretation:[*] it has nothing like default attributes
or entity declarations.  Therefore, the RNG attitude is that
it is the validator, not the document author, who
decides which schema to validate a document against and when.
(Although in practice the schema may often originate
with the document author, or an earlier avatar thereof.)

As a result, there is no provision in either an RNG schema
or a document to refer to the other.

> Levels.  Agreements are usually layered if negotiated. 
> Blind exchanges should not be the way the web works. 


[*]In principle, RNG-based tools could do type decoration
as well, though there are problems with overlapping types
that are not yet solved.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS