Re: [xml-dev] The awesome power of Schematron: using user-definedXSLT f

["HILLMAN, Tomos" <tomos.hillman@oup.com>]

Whilst I agree with Ken’s assertions as an important caveat, I also think
that there’s something important to be recognised in Roger’s enthusiasm
(which ought to extend to XSLT features like keys as well as user defined
functions).

XSLT implementations may not be the best fit for your needs, but they do
lend huge expressive power, are widely supported by editing tools and
CMSs, and are easy to implement (particularly in environments where you
are already performing large XSLT transforms).

We run a centralised schematron service (rightly or wrongly, it uses an
XSLT implementation - as our team is responsible for writing the
schematron rather than running the server, I’m happy about it), and there
are certainly some advantages to doing so (we can be sure the schematron
is relatively up to date, gather statistics, etc).  However I do wonder if
the portability of schematron means we ought to be considering a more
distributed model - at the very least I can see the advantages in our
suppliers, capturers and (one day soon) authors having access to errors as
they capture/write content, reducing our own QA service to a confidence
check.

T

On 18/06/2016 23:28, "G. Ken Holman" <g.ken.holman@gmail.com on behalf of
gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> wrote:

>I stand by my comments regarding implementations of Schematron that
>are not based on XSLT not being able to access user-defined XSLT
>functions


Oxford University Press (UK) Disclaimer

This message is confidential. You should not copy it or disclose its contents to anyone. You may use and apply the information for the intended purpose only. OUP does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are those of the author only and not of OUP. If this email has come to you in error, please delete it, along with any attachments. Please note that OUP may intercept incoming and outgoing email communications.