• From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• To: 'Chris Scott' <scott.chris@g...>,"'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@m...>
• Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:44:32 +0100

> 
> > 2. Is grammar validation of a fundamentally different 
> nature than rule validation?
> 
> I think so.

Say you've got a schema that says an element representing data for a month
must have at most 31 children, and you decide you want to be a bit more
precise and say it must be 30 for some months and 31 for others and
occasionally 28 or 29. Does this refinement mean you are doing something of
a fundamentally different nature? I think not. It does mean that you've
crossed the limits of what can be done with a grammar-based approach, but
surely we should make it as easy and seamless for people to cross that
boundary as we can?

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: A single, all-encompassing data validation language - good or bad for the marketplace?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• References:
  • A single, all-encompassing data validation language - good or bad for the marketplace?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: A single, all-encompassing data validation language - good or bad for the marketplace?
    • From: "Chris Scott" <scott.chris@g...>