• From: DavePawson <davep@d...>
• To: rjelliffe@a...
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:59:25 +0000

rjelliffe@a... wrote:
>> Defaulting values came from SGML days and DTDs..  So it's been around for
>> a
>> while.  Many folks have wanted the validation and augmentation steps
>> separate though no real progress on that.
> 
> Adding default information and other properties is a very respectable
> thing for a schema language to do, IMHO.
> 
> The difficulty is when 1) there is no processing model that guarantees it
> will happen (with SGML and perhaps XML entities the augmentation is
> required), and 2) when the augmentation does not have a natural or formal
> XML form and so requires a change in technology. 

Is that the heart of the matter Rick?
Thinking of todays list of 'applications' to take a simple SGML 
validation and partition it into many parts for different reasons,
isn't augmentation just another option along the way (that some
people want)?

> 
> The dis-integrated committee processes at W3C makes it difficult to get
> any resolution of these, it seems to me. 

If W3C won't address it...


> 
> What is happening, I think, is that because of the complexity of XSD, the
> unreliability of PSVI augmentation, and the lack of PSVI-in-XML,
> developers end up using XSLT to do defaulting, either by preprocessing or
> (probably more often) by copying the defaulting code in each transform
> they write. As far as defaulting goes, XSD has been a major step backwards
> for markup processing, but I suppose it is an issue essentially irrelevant
> if you assume you have a DBMS in the picture.

But clearly not so amongst the readers here.





regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Validate **against** a schema OR validate **with** a schema?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Validate **against** a schema OR validate **with** a schema?
    • From: rjelliffe@a...