Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Borden scripsit: > It all depends on what exactly you want, or intend the validator to do. What > you are saying, in essense, is that an "English sentence" is not defined as > a sequence of characters which conform to "text-en" and this is most true. The original point seems to have gotten lost. The publisher's use case was for a datatype representing those letters, and only those letters, used in writing the Dutch language. Formally, of course, that's easy: it's an xsd:string type with a pattern facet consisting of "[ a-zA-Z...]+". The question is, just what are those other letters represented by the ellipsis in any given case? I used the examples of "façade" and "coöperate" and "naïve" to illustrate that this problem may or may not have a clear-cut answer. These are not foreign words; they are standard spellings (though not the only standard spellings) of standard English words. It's perfectly true that a sentence like "Al-Musa said, '<insert Arabic here>'." is also an English sentence even if the Arabic text is expressed in the Arabic script. But that isn't my point. > Indeed to reliably detect an English sentence the 'recognizer' needs to > understand how to form words from characters and sentences from words. This > is way outside the capabilities of the XML schema definition languages we > have been discussing. Of course, of course. But even at the level of characters, there is a *definitional* (not implementation) problem in saying just what the character repertoire of <insert language here> is. Many have come up against this rock and crashed against it. -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
