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