Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"K.Kawaguchi" wrote: > > Probably now you see why it is called "pattern" in TREX... Yes. Sorry to be reinventing the wheel... > And just in case you don't know, you may also want to see XDuce, which > is based on ML (thus a descendant of Prolog) Ok, will do ! > It's exactly doing what you're thinking, I guess. > > > I meant that we have ambiguity as long as the criteria to choose between > > alternatives are not specified. > > > > There appears then to be 2 approaches: you can (like W3C XML Schema) > > forbid any construct that would be ambiguous or allow constructs that > > would be ambiguous and remove the ambiguity by specifying the algorithm > > to chose between the different possibilities. > > Right. My stupid question is, what is the merit of removing ambiguity by > rule? It's needed if you want to attach a datatype (as requested earlier in this thread)... A validation becomes then a transformation producing a post validation infoset and you need to remove any ambiguity on the result. Thanks for your comments ! Eric > regards, > ---------------------- > K.Kawaguchi > E-Mail: k-kawa@b... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
