Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[Rick Jelliffe] A standard which does not define itself using/providing/profiling a standard executable syntax (e.g. schema) for its non-specific properties (i.e. its grammar not its semantics) should be rejected on the QA basis of being error-prone. An unmeasurable standard is no standard at all, it is a sketch for a standard or a parody of a standard. [Tom P] Whoa, hold up there, Rick. How about xslt (and therefore Schematron!)? There is no useful schema because any elements and attributes can be put in the document. As Mike Kay and others point out from time to time, xslt validation is done by the xslt processor as it tries to compile the stylesheet. You don;t want to say that governments should avoid xslt because it can't be validated against a schema, do you? (Or is there an RNG schema possible for xslt?) There can still be validators - they just do not validate using ordinary schemas. Cheers, Tom P
|
