Amelia A Lewis a écrit :
> On 2007-08-06 21:44:32 -0400 Michael Kay <> wrote:
>> Say you've got a schema that says an element representing data for a
>> month
>> must have at most 31 children, and you decide you want to be a bit more
>> precise and say it must be 30 for some months and 31 for others and
>> occasionally 28 or 29. Does this refinement mean you are doing
>> something of
>> a fundamentally different nature? I think not. It does mean that you've
>> crossed the limits of what can be done with a grammar-based approach, but
>
> Really?
>
> I do not find it difficult to imagine a grammar that can specify these
> constraints;
Job's done : this is what I did with the Active Schema Language ;
content models can adapt themselves while validating, and about
Michael's example, occurrence boundaries can be computed at runtime
In the tutorials of RefleX, the engine that implements ASL, there is
such an example :
http://reflex.gforge.inria.fr/tutorial-schemas.html#activeSchema
Have a look at what I previously posted in this thread
--
Cordialement,
///
(. .)
--------ooO--(_)--Ooo--------
| Philippe Poulard |
-----------------------------
http://reflex.gforge.inria.fr/
Have the RefleX !
