[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hmmm. Having suggested that we wont understand *anything* important about Schematron by contemplating its mathematical properties (unlike RELAX NG), it would be perverse for my article to then have an example that did just that! I guess I should written 'But in Schematron there is partial support for [doing what RELAX NG can do by] being closed under union.' I thought that elided part was unnecessary as it was the gist of the main article. To labour the point: "But in Schematron there is partial support for [explicitly modelling the workflow/variants that would be the hidden intent of using the RELAX NG property of] being closed under union. Anyway, apologies if I have been too terse there: I will attempt to clarify it when I return from holiday. Regards, from a pleasant hot spring tub in Wulai, Taiwan, On 19/01/2017 2:09 AM, "Patrick Durusau" <patrick@d...> wrote: Greetings!
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



