Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I agree that regexes are not enough, but supplemented with ranges and precision > for suitable types, they do almost the whole job. Integrity checks are important, > but I haven't seen anything yet that is really satisfying in this respect except > full Schematron processing. > > whenever I think about what kind of types xml requires I think first of tree descriptions, which is what xpath provides, and then regex for strings where xpath is weak. I don't think of it necessarily as document validation but like is possible with Schematron partial validation relative to the instances of a type. let us suppose that one had a Schematron- like language with assertions etc. that have ids. one declares a type date with a list of regexes for allowable date values. one declares a type MeetingDate which is an element name "Date" that inherits from date for its text content and has two required xpaths, a parent element Meeting, and a following sibling | preceding sibling Time. the idea behind having ids for assertions is that one could have a syntax for removing assertions from an inheriting type and replacing them with others. With a regex extension function for xslt I think this would be reasonably easy to implement in the same way that skeleton1- 5.xsl is used to do a sample Schematron implementation. There would undoubtedly turn out to be a lot of other things needed later, but I sort of think its nicer to find out what people want instead of second guessing them. Although it seems that a lot of people are supposedly clamoring for the xsdl integration in xpath 2.0, xslt 2.0 that everyone here is groaning over... I would just like to find some of these xsd integration proponents (not sitting on a W3C working group) but out in the xml wilds. Anyway I just figured I'd remark on this idea that's been kicking around in my head for a while, mainly cause you mentioned Schematron.
|
