Lists Home |
Date Index |
Speaking as an SGML Neanderthal, schemas sure went a lot further in
breaking an old SGML paradigm than I ever thought. One of the biggest
comforts of SGML was the idea of "No surprises" everything should be
declared and obvious so I would know why something failed.
I swallowed hard on the idea of well-formed documents, but have learned to
live with that, but now not even being able to have a standard way to
determine if this XML file is supposed to be compliant with a DTD or schema
is almost too much to accept.
At 09:51 AM 4/23/2003 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>Danny Vint <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > If a data stream is supposed to be validated with a schema or
> > processed against one, is there anything REQUIRED to be in that stream
> > that would identify it with schema processing?
>Wrt W3C XML Schema, the answer is "No, nothing is required".
> > I know that some tools will allow you to take a well-formed data
> > stream and via some outside mechanism identify that it should be
> > validated with a DTD or Schema without reference (or maybe counter) to
> > anything in the data stream.
>Wrt W3C XML Schema, such tools are conformant, the REC makes explicit
>provision for this.
> > What tools do to work around issues of schema and DTD
> > management/location (catalogs or feeding a value in some other manner)
> > should not necessarily be considered standard or at least good
> > practice.
>The W3C XML Schema REC actually includes a list of recommended
>strategies , but doesn't mandate any of them.
> Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
> Half-time member of W3C Team
> 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
> Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: email@example.com
> URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged