forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [RT] On xml infrastructure work
Date Sun, 17 Feb 2002 06:57:05 GMT
Steven Noels wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > Now my comments:
> >
> > I see two different conceners here about schemas:
> >
> > 1) authoring (here DTDs still are the way to go)
> >
> > 2) validation (here DTDs are showing their age, mostly due to lack of
> > namespace support and RelaxNG is shining here, mostly due to its
> > infoset-neutral and namespace-aware behavior)
> >
> > My idea is to use DTDs to instruct authoring tools and to use
> > RelaxNG to test that they did the right job.
> >
> > So you can think of DTDs as schemas for the client side
> > and RelaxNG as schemas for the server side.
> I for one don't see a real need to validate yet again on the server,
> especially if that means maintaining two separate sets of validation
> rules in a different schema language.

My reasoning for wanting Forrest (and Cocoon for that matter)
to be capable of performing validation, is to guarantee that all
XML instance documents are reliable. Thus stylesheets can be
assured about what they are dealing with.

These documents will come from a variety of input sources.
Sure, those sources might say that they have valid documents.
However, perhaps they have used sub-standard tools, perhaps
they are not configured properly, perhaps they did not even
bother with the validation step. It has been my experience that
most document sets have problems.

Your discussion below supports my own investigations in
another thread "experiment with RELAX NG". I think that the
reliable DTDs of Forrest will be able to be converted into
RELAX NG and, with minor tweaks, used to assist validation.

> How we will maintain synchronicity
> between both sets, except by using some automated tools, seemed like a
> major problem to me.
> So I went off testing grammar translators, and I've been playing around
> with, result of converting my
> local copy of document-v11.dtd to its RelaxNG equivalent is attached.
> DTDInst is of 'James Clark'-quality: which means it is documented what
> is not supported and we can be pretty sure that the rest will be
> up-to-spec. Validating my sample instances against the DTD and generated
> RelaxNG version of the document grammar using Jing
> ( worked well.
> So although I'm not too keen on the usefullness of 'double-validating'
> our documents, at least technically, it will work with minimal hassle.
> Bye for now,
> </Steven>

View raw message