[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Borden scripsit:
> It all depends on what exactly you want, or intend the validator to do. What
> you are saying, in essense, is that an "English sentence" is not defined as
> a sequence of characters which conform to "text-en" and this is most true.
The original point seems to have gotten lost.
The publisher's use case was for a datatype representing those letters,
and only those letters, used in writing the Dutch language. Formally, of
course, that's easy: it's an xsd:string type with a pattern facet
consisting of "[ a-zA-Z...]+". The question is, just what are those
other letters represented by the ellipsis in any given case?
I used the examples of "façade" and "coöperate" and "naïve" to
illustrate that this problem may or may not have a clear-cut answer. These
are not foreign words; they are standard spellings (though not the only
standard spellings) of standard English words.
It's perfectly true that a sentence like "Al-Musa said, '<insert
Arabic here>'." is also an English sentence even if the Arabic text
is expressed in the Arabic script. But that isn't my point.
> Indeed to reliably detect an English sentence the 'recognizer' needs to
> understand how to form words from characters and sentences from words. This
> is way outside the capabilities of the XML schema definition languages we
> have been discussing.
Of course, of course. But even at the level of characters, there is
a *definitional* (not implementation) problem in saying just what
the character repertoire of <insert language here> is.
Many have come up against this rock and crashed against it.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
