[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "Dennis Sosnoski" <dms@sosnoski.com>
> I absolutely prefer using DTDs.
What things are nice about DTDs? terseness, 80/20 level of complexity,
familiarity, tools support, feature mix, link-oriented datatypes?
> ...my preference is to have
> the schema only describe the structure of the document and leave the
> data validation to the application. This is because (1) I'm unwilling to
> trust schema validation by the parser in my code - if somebody changes
> the schema I don't want it creating a buffer overrun (well, an
> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException anyway - you can't actually *do* buffer
> overruns in Java...) in the application; and (2) there are generally
> constraints on the data which cannot be expressed in the schema language
> (interdependencies between values, or dependencies on external values).
Are you saying that as well as supporting the validation model where
we allow very specific validation using generic tools as a matter of
QA and QC, we also need to support document flows where
we have only rudimentary point-to-point validation (e.g. just enough to make sure
that intermediate XSLT programs will work) and the main application
looks after any complex validation itself?
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
