• To: "michael.h.kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>
• Date: 11 Dec 2001 17:25:42 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <002a01c18251$0858be40$465169d5@pcukmka>
• References: <002a01c18251$0858be40$465169d5@pcukmka>

>   This is a wonderful proof that formal specification is self defeating! The
> more formal you try to be, the less anyone understands what you're trying to
> say...

hang on a minute.. :) There are counter-examples. See the link below for
a formal specification XPath.

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/wadler/papers/xpath-semantics/ xpath-semantics.pdf

This is the clearest spec of XPath I've seen, and much easier to read
than the verbose XPath spec. Then again, maybe XPath lends itself to
this kind of specification. (denotational semantics)

Christian Nentwich

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: Paul T <pault12@p...>
  • RE: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • RE: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Validating schema vs. non validating schema
• Next by Date: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Previous by thread: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Next by thread: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread