Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Fuchs, Matthew" wrote: > I think this is close, certainly closer than some are willing to > acknowledge. One important thing is, you don't distinguish between valid > and well-formed. You are basically looking at things from a validation, or > well-typed, perspective - as do I. Evan and Tim are looking at it from a > well-formed perspective. The NS rec means different things for each camp. > Let me slightly rewrite what you've written, and perhaps that will work > better. This pretty much sums it up. And since XML allows well-formedness, we need to support this. I think it also brings out a fundamental schizophrenia about XML Schemas. Are these a type system (I'm allowed to say that -- check the heading of this thread :) or a constraint system? Maybe it would make more sense for XML Schemas to go hog wild on types -- since this is what the metadata people need anyway -- and delegate constraints to something far more versatile, such as Schematron. -- Ron
|
