• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:23:21 +1000
• References: <3ECFD6EE.D9C06AD@m...> <02f401c3223a$6bfdab60$b6f5d3ce@L565> <026e01c32342$6fd8d1c0$4bc8a8c0@A...> <000f01c32347$4ed94d60$6401a8c0@tbp1>

From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

> There can still be validators - they just do not validate using ordinary schemas.

Yes, and if the source code for these validators were released by the group who
made the language being validated, with a warrant that it was (as far as it went)
an correct realization of their standard, it would fill my criteria for a schema 
(from this standards-adoption QA POV), albeit an oddity (although perhaps
the IETF system works a little this way, with the standard being a description 
of the running code.)

A binary tool or third-party code or unvouched code does not make that grade,
which is not to say these things are not better than nothing!   

(Rereading Tom's other comment about XSLT, I guess I should clarify that I am 
talking about standards for public data interchange. )

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: ANN: owl.dtd
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by Date: Re: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: owl.dtd
• Next by thread: Re: Ordinary (was Re: ANN: owl.dtd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread