OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Requirements on validation: (1) combine schemas, (2) divide a document into pieces and validate each piece, (3) use different schema languages, (4) validators work together


> I don't think you've accurately characterised the XSD language.  

Roger quoted what I wrote.

> You can, 
> to a significant degree, to incremenal validation if your validator 
> supports it. 

Here we apparently disagree.  I think that W3C XML Schema fails to 
meet the goal.

>  First of all, you can get a degree of modularity by using 
> facilities like xs:include.

No, xs:include and xs:import merely provides modularization of schemas. 
Modularization is a good thing, but you still have to understand a lot 
about what you want to include or import

I would argue that include/import is simlar to procedure calls 
while NVDL and its precedessors are similar to software components.  

In the case of NVDL, authors of component schemas have to understand 
nothing about the overall picture.  In WXS and RELAX NG, authors have to
understand everything.

You might be interested in my recent note (see my another mail 
"Full validation of Atom feeds containing extensions").  I believe 
that W3C XML Schema cannot capture advanced examples shown in this note.  
RELAX NG probably can do that, but I do not want to maintain such 
complicated schemas.  NVDL and its predecessor NRL provide practical 


MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS