• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: NVDL as a dispatching architecture
• From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@a...>
• Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 09:48:50 +0900
• In-reply-to: <20060509001952.69524.qmail@w...>
• References: <20060509065207.3AE9.EB2M-MRT@a...> <20060509001952.69524.qmail@w...>

Tatu> This approach is obviously less generic than NVDL, but
Tatu> seems reasonable for efficient validation within
Tatu> context of stax (pull) processing.

I am not sure if your approach is less generic.  At a first 
glance, NVDL looks complicated but I would not be surprised 
if your approach can be safely extended for handling NVDL.  

NVDL implementations have been built using SAX.  However, it 
is not easy tell, by reading the NVDL spec, whether NVDL is
implementable using SAX.  To the contrary, most people will 
suppose that it is not.  The same thing might apply to 
pull-based implementations.

Having said this, a single <namespace> element of NVDL
having more than one <validate> element might be a problem 
for pull-based NVDL implementations.  We have to allow a 
single start tag to be *pulled" by more than one validator.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@a...>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: NVDL as a dispatching architecture
    • From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@k...>

• References:
  • NVDL as a dispatching architecture
    • From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@a...>
  • Re: NVDL as a dispatching architecture
    • From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: NVDL as a dispatching architecture
• Next by Date: Re: Java NVDL implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: NVDL as a dispatching architecture
• Next by thread: Re: NVDL as a dispatching architecture
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread