forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Noels" <stev...@outerthought.org>
Subject RE: [RT] On xml infrastructure work
Date Sun, 17 Feb 2002 06:04:57 GMT
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. 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 http://www.thaiopensource.com/dtdinst/, 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
(http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/jing.html) 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>

Mime
View raw message