[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> writes:
> At 03:12 PM 6/7/2002 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> >RELAX NG is constitutionally incapable of providing reliable
> >type assertions.
>
> Constitutionally incapable?
>
> While I understand that RELAX NG _can_ support
> non-deterministic/unreliable models, I don't believe that makes it
> incapable of supporting reliable type assertions provided that the
> writers of the schema consider that a goal.
Two points:
1) There is no way to say in RNG "this schema must be
deterministic", so there's no way for a normative requirement that you
use schemas capable of reliable type assertions to be stated.
2) There is no notion in RNG of identifying the types that were
assigned, reliably or not -- indeed the notion of type assignment
doesn't occur in RNG. As you and many others so eloquently and
repeatedly point out, RNG validation delivers a 1-bit result: valid or
not, nothing else.
> I've argued for a long while that type information should be 'painted'
> as a separate process from validation.
Certainly a possiblity -- should SOAP wait until you or someone else
works that out?
> Compared to that approach, I can't say I find W3C XML Schema
> particularly reliable as a source of type assertions.
'particularly reliable'? You've identified a bug in the W3C XML
Schema REC which means it fails to assign types correctly or
consistently? This is news to me, please let the Working Group know
ASAP.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
