MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
docbook-tc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] Schematron problem in DB5 grammar
From: Norman Walsh <>
To:
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:20:04 -0400
/ Jirka Kosek <> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|> It looks like we're encountering some interoperability issues with the
|> schematron rules embedded directly in the schema. I'm tempted to yank
|> them out entirely in 5.0b1 and simply ship a separate Schematron
|> schema.
|
| I agree that we should ship separate Schematron schema. I think that
| we can left Schematron rules inside RELAX NG because in some tools it
| works and some are just ignoring it. I didn't came across tool that
| will complain about current schema (no sch:pattern and sch:ns). But if
| there is such tool, we should definitively remove Schematron rules
| until this problem gets resolved.
I added the patterns, because I can't see how to generate them (they
need to have a name) so now MSV falls over.
|> If we can get the tools vendors to some consensus on how to encode
|> Schematron rules inside a RELAX NG grammar, we can start shipping them
|> that way again.
|
| Yep. Probably we should try to put together list of RELAX
| NG+Schematron implementations against we could test schemas. There are
| validators that I know:
|
| MSV (+relames)
| Topologi Schematron Validator
| oXygen
| Relaxed (product of my student, see http://badame.vse.cz/validator/)
Cool. There are more than I thought.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <> | All knowledge is of itself of some
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | value. There is nothing so minute
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | or inconsiderable, that I would
| not rather know it than not.--Dr.
| Johnson
