• To: "'Bob Foster'" <bob@o...>,"'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@g...>
• Subject: RE: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:13:04 +0100
• Cc: <davep@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <4317ECF8.3030406@o...>
• Thread-index: AcWvhXisH2YVC/pxQxiBtgbpb2SC/AAD9qEg

> This is absurd. XML Schema is incapable of expressing any but 
> the most 
> trivial constraints in this specification and thus is useless for any 
> practical validation of XHTML.

Actually, I have found that by writing schema-aware stylesheets that
validate XHTML output as it is produced, I'm catching a lot of stylesheet
errors much earlier than I would do otherwise. Perhaps the constraints that
my code is violating are trivial, but it's still nice to know about the
errors as early as possible.

However, I agree that it doesn't make sense to require the XHTML to contain
a reference to the schema. Anyone who wants to validate the XHTML can tell
the validator where to find the schema, there's no good reason to get that
information from the document instance itself. What if it's wrong?

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by Date: Re: quiz on select vs copy-of
• Previous by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread